Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Gone With the Wind Removed From HBO Max Library Following Criticism

HBO Max has removed the classic film Gone With the Wind from its movie library following a number of calls to do so, in light of the ongoing global protests for racial equality.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 600Last Wednesday at 12:18 AM

How many costume themed viewing parties has this ruined for DL?

by Anonymousreply 106/09/2020

What sucks is that HBO Max is unavailable on Roku (my living room) and Amazon TV (my bedroom)

by Anonymousreply 206/09/2020

Ridiculous. It’s an important piece of film history. This is the lefts version of burning books. Things are getting out of control.

by Anonymousreply 306/09/2020

Would Hattie McDaniel agree with this? First person of color to ever win an Oscar. She’s the heart of the movie. And Prissy is the most entertaining character.

Slavery existed. Taking down Gone With The Wind isn’t going to erase that.

by Anonymousreply 406/09/2020

Oh, for PETE'S SAKE. It's not like it's "Birth of a Nation"!

by Anonymousreply 506/09/2020

It was only a matter of time

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 606/09/2020

A movie made in 1938 about the civil war. Are we unable to watch things in context now? For god’s sake.

by Anonymousreply 706/09/2020

R3, Thank you. Nuff said.

by Anonymousreply 806/09/2020

I am never for policing works of art/entertainment. If you're offended, fine. Don't fucking watch whatever it is that's bothering you and leave everyone else the fuck alone.

by Anonymousreply 906/09/2020

"Babes on Broadway", "Everybody Sing", and "Ziegfeld Girl" will be next!

by Anonymousreply 1006/09/2020

Scary

by Anonymousreply 1106/09/2020

Soo, when are they going to start burning people? Because THAT is the trajectory we're on.

by Anonymousreply 1206/09/2020

American has degenerated into a mob of shrieking cadres at a re-education gulag circa the Cultural Revolution.

by Anonymousreply 1306/09/2020

The smartest character in the whole movie is Mammy. I'm sorry that the character and Hattie McDaniel's performance is reduced by some to just an actress playing a stereotype. It was a strong performance and a strong character. Sometimes you have a too look beyond the surface.

by Anonymousreply 1406/09/2020

I’d be willing to bet 99% of the people who called for it to be removed have never seen it. Those twitter SJW could never sit still enough to watch a 4 hour movie. Shame on HBO for caving into pressure. This is a scary precedent to set. Which classic movie is next? Wizard of Oz because it “objectifies” midgets? Breakfast a Tiffany’s? The Treasure of the Sierra Madre?

by Anonymousreply 1506/09/2020

R14, a lot of people are impossible of critical thought and context.

These are the same people we are treating as the moral authority and modern day heroes.

by Anonymousreply 1606/09/2020

So true, R13. People are incapable of thought or discussion or exercising patience now. They just snap when confronted with something that offends them and demand immediate action--or knock down public monuments and throw them in the river, as if every day is the fall of the Berlin Wall or something.

I'm all for the removal of that statue in Bristol of the "philanthropist" who made his fortune as a slave trader, but a mob marching through the streets and baying for blood as they do it is really scary--as is the number of people applauding those actions. It's as if there's no middle ground between ragefully trashing things and supporting the institution of slavery.

by Anonymousreply 1706/09/2020

In her Oscar speech, Hattie McDaniel said that she hoped that she would be a credit to her race. And she proved that she was, being the first black Oscar winner.

Now, she would be turning in her grave at the stupidity and fascist tendencies of the SJW's, who want to burn and ban anything that might hurt their feelings.

by Anonymousreply 1806/09/2020

I guess it was too early to be worrying about who would run in Biden’s stead for a second term.

The left is doing a great job campaigning for four more years of Trump. He should send them a muffin basket.

by Anonymousreply 1906/09/2020

This movie is a guilty pleasure. I know it’s wrong but I love the costumes and the story.

by Anonymousreply 2006/09/2020

R20 there’s nothing wrong with liking Gone With the Wind. It’s a fabulous movie.

by Anonymousreply 2106/09/2020

The USA has gone mad with it's very misguided attempt to wipe out racism. Extremism and fanaticism are unhealthy. It'll all come back to bite them like very bad karma. At the moment insanity prevails.

by Anonymousreply 2206/09/2020

R20 WHY do you feel guilty?!

by Anonymousreply 2306/09/2020

So, any liberals starting to get an uneasy feeling...?

by Anonymousreply 2406/09/2020

R20, because the Thought Control Goons told him it was wrong.

by Anonymousreply 2506/09/2020

Anyone else old enough to remember when it was the right wing trying to censor anything they didn't like? The answer from the left back then was what R9 said: Don't like it? Don't watch it/listen to it!

by Anonymousreply 2606/09/2020

No one ever gives it credit for actually subverting race relations at that time. Mammy is a strong woman, who is actually allowed to talk back to a white woman, without consequences, and then Hattie McDaniel won the Oscar for doing it. At a time when black men were being lynched, after being falsely accused of raping white women, it was the BIG DARK SKINNED man, Big Sam that saves the white heroine from being raped. It wasn't perfect, but for a studio film in 1939 it was actually quite progressive.

by Anonymousreply 2706/09/2020

Next to be removed should be The Help.

by Anonymousreply 2806/09/2020

R24, yes. We finally had the ball in our court after Trump botched COVID. People were listening after George Floyd. Now the push to abolish police and silence any person/art they find offensive is once again playing right into Republican hands.

And at this point, I don’t see much hope in how things will be run by the modem Left if by some miracle Biden gets elected. I just think it will turn into a different fascist hellscape.

by Anonymousreply 2906/09/2020

This will end when Trump is gone. Everything that is happening is a response to how disgusting anything even vaguely associated with him is.

by Anonymousreply 3006/09/2020

[quote] This will end when Trump is gone

You're kidding yourself.

by Anonymousreply 3106/09/2020

R30 It won't happen. Once a genie is let out of the bottle it won't go back in without a huge fight.

by Anonymousreply 3206/09/2020

Their "perpetual victim" mentality is what's most annoying.

by Anonymousreply 3306/09/2020

Considering the trajectory of the current crises, and the reactionary response from the Far FAR Left, anything Biden does will alienate a large segment of Democratic voters. People of all races negatively impacted by the protests/riots will stay at home unless he disavows them- and trust me, he will be grilled thoroughly about his thoughts and proposals. If he chooses to side with the people harmed, black voters will be less enthusiastic.

2020 needs a hard reboot.

by Anonymousreply 3406/09/2020

Exactly. Trump or not, this is here to stay.

It's going to get worse.

by Anonymousreply 3506/09/2020

Americans were violent, bigoted, and racist long before Trump took office and will remain violent, bigoted, and racist long after Trump is gone.

by Anonymousreply 3606/09/2020

R35, could you explain?

by Anonymousreply 3706/09/2020

So many people invested in negativity and resentment. Trumpers, I guess, or foreigners.

by Anonymousreply 3806/09/2020

If anyone comes for my favorite movie "Showboat" (1936), I will drown them in the Mississippi!

by Anonymousreply 3906/09/2020

Went With The Wind enslaved a white woman.

by Anonymousreply 4006/09/2020

Lol, R38. Because anti-Trumpers right now are a paragon of positivity and non-resentful behavior.

by Anonymousreply 4106/09/2020

R9- I’m not for banning GWTW but I have a problem with your argument. I would have a problem with people watching and heralding an anti-gay movie and I’d be offended by anyone telling me “then don’t watch it.”

by Anonymousreply 4206/09/2020

GWTW isn't an anti-gay movie, or an anti-anything movie, dear buttercup!

by Anonymousreply 4306/09/2020

R42 Name an anti-gay movie and I'll get back to you.

by Anonymousreply 4406/09/2020

Isn’t this just a matter of attention whores doing the disruption mambo in order to throw something triggering out there to get the most likes and follows?

by Anonymousreply 4506/09/2020

Just shows how actions-unaware the elite, so called highly educated Left continue to be. With these latest censoring bans, sadly in a very ill timed way they’re handing the Presidency for 4 more years to Trump.

by Anonymousreply 4606/09/2020

r37 more and more books and movies are going to be expunged as if they were never made. These feelings, opinions and stances will continue even if Trump is out of power.

by Anonymousreply 4706/09/2020

The Op-Ed that inspired it. Paywalled from the LA Times

Congratulations to WarnerMedia on the launch of HBO Max. As an HBO subscriber, I am excited about the breadth of programming and films offered on the platform. While I’m sure the streaming service will continue to improve with time, I have one request to WarnerMedia for the near term: Please consider removing “Gone With the Wind” from your rotation of films.

As a filmmaker I get that movies are often snapshots of moments in history. They reflect not only the attitudes and opinions of those involved in their creation, but also those of the prevailing culture. As such, even the most well-intentioned films can fall short in how they represent marginalized communities.

“Gone With the Wind,” however, is its own unique problem. It doesn’t just “fall short” with regard to representation. It is a film that glorifies the antebellum south. It is a film that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color.

It is a film that, as part of the narrative of the “Lost Cause,” romanticizes the Confederacy in a way that continues to give legitimacy to the notion that the secessionist movement was something more, or better, or more noble than what it was — a bloody insurrection to maintain the “right” to own, sell and buy human beings.

The movie had the very best talents in Hollywood at that time working together to sentimentalize a history that never was. And it continues to give cover to those who falsely claim that clinging to the iconography of the plantation era is a matter of “heritage, not hate.”

Let me be real clear: I don’t believe in censorship. I don’t think “Gone With the Wind” should be relegated to a vault in Burbank. I would just ask, after a respectful amount of time has passed, that the film be re-introduced to the HBO Max platform along with other films that give a more broad-based and complete picture of what slavery and the Confederacy truly were. Or, perhaps it could be paired with conversations about narratives and why it’s important to have many voices sharing stories from different perspectives rather than merely those reinforcing the views of the prevailing culture.

Currently, there is not even a warning or disclaimer preceding the film.

I know taking down a film — particularly a classic Hollywood film — seems like a big request. But it’s not nearly as big a demand as when your children ask whether they can join protests in the streets against racial intolerance, or when they come to you wanting to know what you did to make the world a better place.

At a moment when we are all considering what more we can do to fight bigotry and intolerance, I would ask that all content providers look at their libraries and make a good-faith effort to separate programming that might be lacking in its representation from that which is blatant in its demonization.

I plan on keeping my subscription to HBO Max. But I hope that those in decision-making positions at WarnerMedia can understand how painful it is to scroll through the platform’s library and see it elevate one film in particular that has helped to perpetuate the racism that’s causing angry and grieving Americans to take to the streets.

John Ridley is a director, screenwriter and novelist. He won an Academy Award for adapted screenplay for “12 Years a Slave.”

by Anonymousreply 4806/09/2020

"I don't know nuthin' 'bout HBO Max, Miss Scarlett."--Prissy

I wonder what DL fave Livvie D thinks of this hullabaloo?

by Anonymousreply 4906/09/2020

R44, not the poster you’re responding to, but Braveheart. And that’s just off the top of my head. There are plenty more.

But I’m guessing you’re a frau who has no concept of gay film history and doesn’t think homophobia has ever existed.

by Anonymousreply 5006/09/2020

R48 here. I'm a half-black millennial and I love Gone with the Wind. I own it on Blu-ray. I think it should be in the Criterion Collection. It's a marvel of filmmaking on every level. Does it have parts that make me CRINGE? ABSOLUTELY. But at its core, it's about a character who gets all kind of shit thrown at her by life and never ever gives the fuck up. To me, that has always been the most important part of the film. When life smacks you down and you're eating a half-rotted carrot, you choke it down and keep fucking going.

I agree with parts of the Op-Ed. A few I do not, and will address. Why does a film this fucking famous need a "content warning?" Are there any people in the English speaking world who don't know what it's about? How is it being on HBO Max any different than it being on all these other streaming platforms? (Image attached). No one is going to come into your house and make you click on it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5106/09/2020

[quote] I’m not for banning GWTW but I have a problem with your argument. I would have a problem with people watching and heralding an anti-gay movie and I’d be offended by anyone telling me “then don’t watch it.”

Ok, then be offended. Feel free to write about why you hate/dislike the movie and share it all over social media. Nobody is stopping you.

by Anonymousreply 5206/09/2020

Where shall I go? How shall I view?

by Anonymousreply 5306/09/2020

"glorifies the antebellum south'. Really? All of two days in a narrative that spans 10 years? And from the point of view of a love struck teen?

The two main characters HATE the war. Rhett is smart enough to profit from it but he has no respect for The Cause. His final move to join is just a sentimental gesture or a calculated strategy to socially survive after the fall.

And Scarlett has no truck with the cause. Fiddle dee dee and all that. She merely endures it because she has no choice. She hates the Yankees because they are the cause of her poverty and distress.

by Anonymousreply 5406/09/2020

I can understand Birth of a Nation and Song of The South being censored or withdrawn but not Gone with The Wind.

by Anonymousreply 5506/09/2020

R50 It has been years since I've seen that film. I'm guessing you are referring to the depiction of Edward II. While it was a historically inaccurate depiction of him, I would not ban the movie.

R55 Though, I would mention there are NO SLAVES or SLAVERY in Song of the South, it was set post civil war.

by Anonymousreply 5606/09/2020

Trannies pull the same shit with anything they see as “transphobic” Bunch of babies.

by Anonymousreply 5706/09/2020

R54, Scarlett and Rhett are largely outliers though. Ashley, Melanie and most of the other characters are very nostalgic for The Old South

by Anonymousreply 5806/09/2020

[quote]following a number of calls

I guarantee you there weren't even many people saying anything. Some of these fools give in so easily that it was probably only like a baker's dozen of complaints and they folded.

by Anonymousreply 5906/09/2020

I’M SHAKING MY HOOP SKIRT IN ANGER

by Anonymousreply 6006/09/2020

The rightwing publications are already foaming at the mouth.

by Anonymousreply 6106/09/2020

[quote]This movie is a guilty pleasure. I know it’s wrong but I love the costumes and the story.

I agree. It's one of those movies that I almost always watch whenever it's on TCM.

by Anonymousreply 6206/09/2020

Scarlett and Rhett are the LEAD characters. They are the survivors, the winners (except within their own relationship). Scarlett's point of view is the most important POV in the whole book/movie. And Ashley wanted free his families slaves when his father died. When was Melanie nostalgic for the good old days?

by Anonymousreply 6306/09/2020

[quote]I can understand Birth of a Nation and Song of The South being censored or withdrawn but not Gone with The Wind.

I first watched Birth of a Nation in a college film class in 2004 and nobody really complained about it. Today, if it was shown in colleges, I'm sure plenty people would go fucking nuts.

by Anonymousreply 6406/09/2020

Recently, I watched Horror Noire. It's a doc with Black filmmakers and academics who discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of Black representation within the genre. I highly recommend it for any horror fans.

I would love to see something similar for Black representation in Old Hollywood or film in general. I see the good, the bad and the ugly in GWTW.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6506/09/2020

Why don't SJWs understand context unless it's related to one of their pet concerns? Is it that hard to read like a paragraph of a history book?

by Anonymousreply 6606/09/2020

R58 Not entirely. Ashley states in the film that even if the war hadn't come and freed his family's slaves he planned to when he inherited. None of them seem particularly nostalgic for the antebellum world. They just try to move on. In fact the only time the "Lost Cause" is mentioned is by Dolly Merriwether, and it is treated comically with the organization being given a preposterous and comical name, the "Association for the Beautification of the Graves of the Glorious Dead."

Ashley's basic issue is that he was raised to be a gentleman planter and now the life he was raised for is no longer, so he is at a lost as to what to do. Which is the problem for all the white characters other than the rebels like Scarlett, Rhett and Belle Watling, who never cared what society thought of or expected of them.

by Anonymousreply 6706/09/2020

R64 I saw it in 2006 in a college film course. The professor gave about a 30-45 minute lecture about its importance as filmmaking, but its overall grossness as a film. And it is...really gross.

First time I saw GWTW was in 6th grade history class, circa 2000. The teacher cut the tape after Scarlett and Rhett got married. I don't remember if there was a context lecture.

by Anonymousreply 6806/09/2020

R66 you are talking abourt crazies that go apeshit when someone calls a person that menstruates a “woman”.

by Anonymousreply 6906/09/2020

R69, I was just gonna say "If GWTW involved backwards attitudes about trans people, you can be sure it would be banned already".

by Anonymousreply 7006/09/2020

[quote] Ridiculous. It’s an important piece of film history. This is the lefts version of burning books. Things are getting out of control.

When people started trying to erase history by removing statues, it was clear that there would be no limit on eradicating whatever the mob demands. Welcome to dystopia.

by Anonymousreply 7106/09/2020

Oh DL..never failing to make ANY topic about Trans people.

by Anonymousreply 7206/09/2020

I wouldn't be surprised if some people ask for the novel to be banned in schools and colleges. If that ever happens, I hope journalists and historians point out that Margaret Mitchell secretly funded a scholarship for students at Morehouse College.

by Anonymousreply 7306/09/2020

Never thought I'd live to see the day.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7406/09/2020

[quote] And it is...really gross.

No kidding. According to the movie, the KKK is out there protecting white men from black men out there ready to defile their daughters and kill them and (gasp!) demand equality. Truly a loathsome movie. But yes, as moviemaking goes, it's very important.

by Anonymousreply 7506/09/2020

R71 except most of the Civil War statues were put up in the 50s and 60s to remind African Americans of their place.

by Anonymousreply 7606/09/2020

I'm all for statues being taken down. It's not like they plan on writing those people out of history books due to sensitivity.

by Anonymousreply 7706/09/2020

[quote] except most of the Civil War statues were put up in the 50s and 60s to remind African Americans of their place.

They were put up mainly during two periods, the 50th and 100th anniversary of the Civil War.

by Anonymousreply 7806/09/2020

R77 Only 2% of the population read history books.

And only 9% of the population read any kind of book.

by Anonymousreply 7906/09/2020

Fuck the statues

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8006/09/2020

The rioters in Boston attacked the monument to the first African-American volunteer infantry unit. The erasure of the Civi War is indiscriminate.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8106/09/2020

Welcome to 4 more years of Dump.

by Anonymousreply 8206/09/2020

Welcome to 4 more years of Dump.

by Anonymousreply 8306/09/2020

If the libs go overboard with this as they always do the white backlash will benefit ..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8406/09/2020

I'm a little disappointed that it was John Ridley, who won the Oscar for the screenplay for 12 Years a Slave but also wrote and created American Crime, the excellent ABC series from a few years back. But, I am not black and I won't lie, I am a fan of Gone With the Wind. I do agree with some of his opinions but I am just wary of removing programming, even temporarily.

by Anonymousreply 8506/09/2020

[quote] Only 2% of the population read history books.

Wow. I'm glad I'm a nerd then. I just bought two history books: Sex and the Constitution and Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution. I'm guessing that other 98% of people will just use twitter, instagram and facebook to learn all their history (sigh).

by Anonymousreply 8606/09/2020

[quote]They were put up mainly during two periods, the 50th and 100th anniversary of the Civil War.

And their side LOST, idiot. Their side was ANTI-AMERICAN. Do you see Benedict Arnold statues everywhere?

by Anonymousreply 8706/09/2020

Who is actually paying fifteen bucks for HBO Max? The same people that are getting Apple streaming channel.

by Anonymousreply 8806/09/2020

Yaaaass, this pleases The Trigglypuff.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8906/09/2020

So this is why I couldn't find it. One of the reasons I subscribed to HBOMax was because of their film library and one of my favorite movies is Gone With The Wind. I'm am disturbed and annoyed that they would remove a masterpiece from their collection because of some SJW whining about it. Content warning? Fuck that. I'm going to write HBO and complain.

by Anonymousreply 9006/09/2020

R56, I’m not saying to ban it. The poster insinuated there wasn’t any movies with homophobic themes. I was just providing one, big mainstream example. I don’t think it or Gone With The Wind or frankly any movies should be banned. Free speech isn’t supposed to protect the speech you like; it’s to protect they speech you don’t like.

by Anonymousreply 9106/09/2020

Artistically many of the monuments aren't special and were basically mass-produced such as the Silent Sam ones. Some others, though are wonderfully artistic. Instead of just destroying them, I would prefer that they be moved to some sort of outdoor museum where they could be interpreted better and where they could only be viewed if you desired to view them.

There are a few exceptions. If people want a Confederate General to have a monument make one to James Longstreet. After the war he became a Republican and then led a black militia against white supremacists in the Battle of Liberty Place in New Orleans and urged submission to the new order. For this his reputation was destroyed by the lost causers until recently. I would also say that it is wrong to remove statues to General P.G.T. Beauregard, since after the war he not only accepted black suffrage but fully embraced and advocated for it, and left a paper trail showing his evolution on the issue of black civil rights. Those are just two men that all Southerners can be proud of for changing and growing.

R87 And, you can't seem to figure out the whole point, after the war, was reconciliation. Not to revel in the South losing, but to heal the wounds of division. Remember the words of Abraham Lincoln

[quote] With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

by Anonymousreply 9206/09/2020

or...R90, you could get it from one of the many services at R51...or buy the Blu-ray?

by Anonymousreply 9306/09/2020

R90 I'm going to complain, too. This is bullshit!!

by Anonymousreply 9406/09/2020

R92, their side was about keeping humans as property. While I respect Lincoln, context and time matters.

Statues signify a celebration of that person's accomplishments. There is no celebrating an attempt to keep human beings as livestock.

by Anonymousreply 9506/09/2020

They'll bring it back with much fanfare after filming a Q&A discussion or something that plays before or after the movie. They'll use this whole thing for publicity.

by Anonymousreply 9606/09/2020

I remember FOUR decades ago when we were up in arms and protesting in the street about 'Cruising'.

I saw it later and thought it ugly, confusing, rude, bleak and cinematically awful but I wouldn't protest in the street about it.

by Anonymousreply 9706/09/2020

R97, I was actually going to bring Cruising above earlier when the personabove mentioned that they would be offended if someone told them just "not to watch" an anti-gay movie. I see why people hate it but, like you, I would never waste my time protesting it. Why? What does that even do? It just exposes yourself as a hypersensitive crybaby. People did the same thing with Dressed to Kill. Of all the movies in the world to target for sexism, they go after that one? Stupid.

by Anonymousreply 9806/09/2020

[quote] And their side LOST, idiot. Their side was ANTI-AMERICAN

And after they lost they were granted full amnesty and pardons resuming their status as loyal Americans. If those who actually lived through that time could move on it's pathetic to watch the current generation of basement dwellers get self righteous about those who have been dead for generations.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9906/09/2020

R97, the thing about the Cruising protests that I respect is that, at the time, there was barely any positive representations of gay people in the media, so a movie about a deviant killer in the leather community had the potential to reinforce stereotypes.

GWTW has been around for a hundred years so we know it’s content. Cruising didn’t turn out quite as bad as people thought it would. Ironically, homophobes protested it too because they didn’t want anything perverse in their town either. It was a movie that everyone hated. GWTW has been loved by generations and it for the first black actor ever an Academy Award. In 1939, that would’ve been impossible if she and her place in the movie didn’t highlight something very special about a woman of color.

by Anonymousreply 10006/09/2020

R95 But it doesn’t signify a celebration by those alive today, it signifies a celebration of them by the people who erected them. We need to remember that the idea that slavery was wrong has only been the mainstream belief for at most 175 years. The idea that races are equal is even newer. It is the same as I refuse to condemn people from most of world history for homophobia as the idea that it is normal and not sinful is too recent. Even as much as we celebrate Ancient Greek and Roman culture they were not a modern PRIDE festival.

I judge people in history not by my values today but the values of the time and place in which they lived.

by Anonymousreply 10106/09/2020

r92, the Confederates committed TREASON against the USA.. I never thought they should have gotten off so easily for what they did.

Screw Lincoln and his reconciliation plans, look where that got him.

by Anonymousreply 10206/09/2020

How about all the teen & gross out comedies where anything remotely homosexual is played as a disgusting, revolting joke?

Why haven’t the T’s demanded Ace Ventura be removed from Netflix, as the entire plot revolves around poking fun at the Trans cop/football player?

This is beyond ridiculous, Fahrenheit 451 bullshit. Buy or dust off a DVD player and buy a copy. Eventually even purchase libraries for streaming like Prime will block your access to your purchased films and refund you. This really is the type of bullshit that furthers Trump’s cause. Keep it up, SJWs and we’ll all be in 4 more years of shit.

by Anonymousreply 10306/09/2020

[quote] If those who actually lived through that time could move on it's pathetic to watch the current generation of basement dwellers get self righteous about those who have been dead for generations.

Wow, are you fucking tone deaf. Basement dwellers? Ask black people about "moving on." You think the war just ended and everyone moved on? If I'm a basement dweller, then you must be in a fucking ivory tower. How in the hell did you write that and miss the irony of questioning me on where I "dwell"?

by Anonymousreply 10406/09/2020

R101, 175 years? You’re wrong. Racism didn’t start to be acknowledged until 2015 when Twitter decided to weigh in. Also, there was no female directors and we thought rape was okay.

by Anonymousreply 10506/09/2020

Since we're getting rid of all those symbols of oppression and racism, when will Churches be burned to the ground? When will the celebration of Xtian festivals cease? When will the penchant in the Black community for Muslim names be eradicated?

by Anonymousreply 10606/09/2020

R102 again judge them by the time in which they lived. The one Confederate who was held and that they planned on charging with treason was Jefferson Davis. They didn’t do it. There was concern that it could not be treason for one or more of the sovereign states to leave the Union. Especially since that is pretty much how the country had formed less than 100 years prior. It was further worried that the Supreme Court could rule that secession was in fact legal. That was just not a can of constitutional worms anyone wanted to open in the aftermath of a long and costly civil war.

by Anonymousreply 10706/09/2020

[quote]Currently, there is not even a warning or disclaimer preceding the film.

MARY!

Claims to be a "filmmaker", and "not into censorship".....riiiiiight.

by Anonymousreply 10806/09/2020

R108 that was the equivalent of “I’m not a racist BUT..”

“I’m not for censorship BUT...” then proceeds to list all the ways he is, indeed, pro-censorship.

Self-aware he’s not.

by Anonymousreply 10906/09/2020

It’s an over long tedious film that should have been cut down to an hour and a half.

by Anonymousreply 11006/09/2020

^ I would have distilled it down by one hour and would have imposed a bigger, more satisfactory finale. But we have to blame Busybody Selznick for that.

The film 'Rebecca' is a small domestic drama which Hitchcock thought should last 95 minutes but Selznick demanded it be larded out to 130 minutes.

by Anonymousreply 11106/10/2020

R101. Sorry, but racism has been acknowledged long before the invention of Twitter. Research contemporary discussions about the actions of President Wilson and the progressive actions taken by FDR and his wife to see that it was the topic of much discussion long before 2015..

by Anonymousreply 11206/10/2020

R112 What was President Wilson doing a hundred years ago?

'Racism" wasn't discussed until 50 years ago.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11306/10/2020

Watch out DL. You’re next. It’s common knowledge black leadership hates gays.

by Anonymousreply 11406/10/2020

[quote] It’s common knowledge black leadership hates gays.

Candace, stop trying to make schizophrenia happen, it's NOT going to happen!

by Anonymousreply 11506/10/2020

Can we go after homophobic rappers next?

by Anonymousreply 11606/10/2020

^^^I would love to see all the hypocritical SJWs argue abotu context to defend them. So many screenshots!

by Anonymousreply 11706/10/2020

^ Yes, I'd like to SEE them. Most of them are invisible keyboard warriors.

by Anonymousreply 11806/10/2020

I’m sure it’ll be like “Racism is a far greater problem in this country than homophobia. Every cis white man has a more privileged life in every other blah blah way.”

That is until Trump does something that targets the gays. Then we’ll be used as a weapon for about a week until he picks another group to single out. And around and around and around we’ll go for the next five years.

We’re just an easily discarded totem in the war of identity politics. BLM is about to find themselves the same position once the new story breaks.

by Anonymousreply 11906/10/2020

It would be TOO much fun taking screenshots of all those peoples faces! Someone could make an entire blog of every single one of those idiots and it would be so entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 12006/10/2020

[quote][R55] Though, I would mention there are NO SLAVES or SLAVERY in Song of the South, it was set post civil war.

No, but it does have Uncle Remus waxing nostalgic about things being better during slavery.

The one Disney really needs to deal with is Dumbo. It's not just the scene with the crows, it opens with a bunch of faceless black men singing a song about how they enjoy slaving away at their jobs, throw their pay away because they don't need anything other than making people happy, and includes the lyric "Grab that rope, you dirty ape." Many of the Disney films have their problems, but none are quite that awful.

by Anonymousreply 12106/10/2020

Margaret Mitchell used a good portion of her earnings/personal fortune to finance the college/medical school education of young African American doctors at Atlanta's Morehouse College. I'm not talking two or three - more like 60 to 80!! Of course it was all very hush-hush/cloak and dagger as her great philanthropy could have gotten her killed back at that time. Her extraordinary gift was one that obviously kept on giving.

Yes! Margaret Mitchell did this.

by Anonymousreply 12206/10/2020

R122, that’s not enough for white liberals with BLM signs in 2020. Nothing is enough.

by Anonymousreply 12306/10/2020

A few dozen of our elderloungers have freaked out like the movie has been destroyed and will never be seen again.

GWTW is on 15 streaming platforms and available in dozens of home media formats right now. It's not gone.

So why are you REALLY upset about this? Because HBOMax is going to create what are basically DVD extras to add to the movie for context? Why does that hurt your feelings?

by Anonymousreply 12406/10/2020

It's called sarcasm r112.

by Anonymousreply 12506/10/2020

Well, yeah - it's fucked up to be so petty that you even demand GWTW to be "cancelled." That said, R123, I'm clearly not going to allow their own ignorance in THIS regard to diminish my own appreciation of what they've done re the protesting, etc. These protests are an important milestone for the obvious, but also for reasons the general population know nothing about! I'll take the bad along with the good, and focus solely on that good as it produces good result.

by Anonymousreply 12606/10/2020

[quote]Soo, when are they going to start burning people? Because THAT is the trajectory we're on.

Who are the 13 motherfucking idiots who WWed this?

You absolute fucking morons, the movie was not taken away. This is not censorship. This is one streaming service briefly taking the movie off the platform so they can add extras before they add it back on. The movie remains available in dozens of other ways.

And who do you think the "they" is here? You think HBOMax is going to start burning people alive? Really?

What in the everloving fuck is WRONG with you?

by Anonymousreply 12706/10/2020

[quote]'Racism" wasn't discussed until 50 years ago.

You utter dipshit, the chart you linked to showed it being used in the 1930s. Do you think it's still the 1980s?

And the word "racism" wasn't even invented until 1902. Racism as a concept was absolutely discussed prior to 1902, with different words and phrases but still discussed. You think no one talked about racism during the Civil War?

Christ, people, this is the most goddamned embarrassing thread we've had on Datalounge, and we're the home of the Prancing Ponies, so that's saying something.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12806/10/2020

It's the most overrated movie ever. Stilted acting with the movie way too long. Yes, nice costums and sets but overall another 30s screwball comedy without the funny. It's awful.

by Anonymousreply 12906/10/2020

I was going to post a pic of a turd and call it "r128's poop perdu," but I decided r128's posts in this thread were already more poop than we needed.

by Anonymousreply 13006/10/2020

It's a good look to act like a 12-year-old when you're in your 70s, R130. Well done.

by Anonymousreply 13106/10/2020

Butterfly McQueen is CANCELLED!

by Anonymousreply 13206/10/2020

Yeah, r131. That's why I didn't do it. And I'm not in my 70s. So far, the 70s are still a temperature, a decade, a neighbhorhood.

by Anonymousreply 13306/10/2020

This feels like a fake sacrifice. I get the issues with it, but isn't the discussion those issues potentially provoke even more valuable than banishment?

by Anonymousreply 13406/10/2020

There is no sacrifice. The movie has not been removed from all platforms. And it will be returning to HBOMax with extras that are designed to spur on the exact kind of discussion you seem to want, R134.

by Anonymousreply 13506/10/2020

[quote]Christ, people, this is the most goddamned embarrassing thread we've had on Datalounge

I really, really want to agree with you r128, but currently on the Datalounge is a thread entitled "What’s your greatest achievement on DL?"

by Anonymousreply 13606/10/2020

Actually you're the "idiot", R127, if this doesn't bother you.

by Anonymousreply 13706/10/2020

I think people are smart enough to know what a stereotype is.

by Anonymousreply 13806/10/2020

Yikes R136. I stand corrected, this is apparently not the most embarrassing thread we've ever had.

by Anonymousreply 13906/10/2020

I stand with r127 who said what I intended to say.

by Anonymousreply 14006/10/2020

R136 and r139, what are YOUR greatest achievements on DL?

by Anonymousreply 14106/10/2020

I have successfully avoided the "What’s your greatest achievement on DL?" r141.

by Anonymousreply 14206/10/2020

r36 here again. Actually, I posted on the "What’s your greatest achievement on DL?" thread.

So, I lied.

by Anonymousreply 14306/10/2020

This will be very telling if filmmakers like Spielberg and Scorsese don't speak out on against this.

by Anonymousreply 14406/10/2020

Gone With the Wind is one of the most popular films of all time. The sad little knock-off Maoists have no political instincts, much less a coherant worldview.

by Anonymousreply 14506/10/2020

I GUESS MY "GUILTY PLEASURE" MANDINGO AND DRUM (KEN NORTON! SIGH!) will be banished soon as well.. along with those "blaxploitation" films of fred williamson (!) and jim brown (!) too?!...

by Anonymousreply 14606/10/2020

I want Psycho and all it's sequels and remakes banished. Painting that poor trans as some kind of monster.

by Anonymousreply 14706/10/2020

What r127 and r128 said.

Trump's BAGA - Brownshirts All Gettin' Antsy, are out in full force on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 14806/10/2020

[quote]This will be very telling if filmmakers like Spielberg and Scorsese don't speak out on against this.

Against what? One streaming platform temporarily removing the movie, while over a dozen other platforms still have it easily available?

Look, nothing has been censored, nothing has been lost or removed, no one is getting burned alive and democracy hasn't died forever.

Either you're being manipulated by trolls who want you to think that's all true, or you're a troll trying to manipulate. All I can do is hope that the real people here who are being frightened by the trolls can calm down and listen to reason, and understand that nothing censorious, bad or untoward is happening here.

Sure, some of them will call me "poop" for saying so, because they'd rather be frightened than be informed. You can't help people like that. But maybe others will take a deep breath and start thinking more logically about what is really happening.

by Anonymousreply 14906/10/2020

R134 Even 10 years ago the idea of it provoking discussion would be an approach some activists would consider.

Nowadays the people on twitter who care about banning things they've never watched or had interest in watching aren't capable of such a nuanced approach. They basically are only armed with one way of dealing with things and so they bombard different companies with messages until the fake sacrifices are made and It's a way for those types of people to feel like they accomplished something.

This is what happens when people want to feel like they are an activists but they don't actually know how to be one and aren't interested in learning. These fake activists often are diverting resources and hamstringing the activists who really are knowledgeable and capable of creating change.

by Anonymousreply 15006/10/2020

Bully It, Bash It, Ban It, Burn It

by Anonymousreply 15106/10/2020

R149 This is how it starts. It's only one platform, it's only temporary. Censorship is censorship. If you don't realize this, you are in for a rude awakening when they come for you.

by Anonymousreply 15206/10/2020

Gone With the Wind has not been banned and it has not been sacrificed.

You can go watch it right now on DirectTV for free, on Amazon, YouTube, Google, Fandango, Apple, Vudu, Redbox, MS movies and more.

It will return to HBOMax soon.

by Anonymousreply 15306/10/2020

Just cancelled my HBO. If you're going to let SJWs censor your selections, you don't get my money. Fuck Off HBO!

It sucks now anyway since being purchased by AT & T.

by Anonymousreply 15406/10/2020

R148 Everyone who notices what crazed cunts you are is not a fascist, or deplorable, or whatever other Boogeyman you believe in. We don't have to monsters because you told us to, and we still see what you are yourself.

by Anonymousreply 15506/10/2020

And in the spirit of what r150 posted, "GWTW", the novel, should be required reading in US High Schools.

What ever Margaret Mitchell "secretly" donated to Morehouse College doesn't change the fact that in "GWTW" she justifies, approves, argues for and lays bare the bigotry, ignorance, racism, attitudes, and beliefs of both Americans of the South and the North when it came to subjugating, enslaving, and sub-humanizing African Americans.

I maintain if you want to know why, today, race relations are as they are still, it's all there in the novel GWTW.

That's why I think it should be required reading. So it can be deconstructed, taken apart, and then put back together for the ugly expose (x-po-say, I don't know how to make one of those marks over the "e") that it is.

by Anonymousreply 15606/10/2020

Oh, and I know that I could take a running start, flap my arms and fly over Lake Michigan before American High Schoolers could put together the concentration to tackle a long novel that is "GWTW", but still.

by Anonymousreply 15706/10/2020

They'll have to pry my DVD of MANDINGO from my cold, dead hands!

by Anonymousreply 15806/10/2020

R156 If by "So it can be deconstructed, taken apart, and then put back together for the ugly expose..." you mean fill out worksheets to make sure the kids actually read the book, the Highschool teachers of America have got your back!

College English professors don't even do that level of discussion anymore. They'd just give you a lecture detailing why the book is racist, and your essay would be to comb through the book looking for excerpts to prove the professor's points back to him. Zero discussion.

by Anonymousreply 15906/10/2020

hate that stupid film

by Anonymousreply 16006/10/2020

I know you're right, r159, but, a person can daydream.

by Anonymousreply 16106/10/2020

If and when the film comes back "with a conversation" attached, you can bet that most of the audience will be using that opportunity to go microwave their popcorn, take a shit or change the baby's diaper. Hardly anybody will sit through a lecture when all they want is the fuckin' movie!

by Anonymousreply 16206/10/2020

My sister is a PhD candidate in literature specializing in film studies (film is a "text"), and she told me that woke culture has been destroying the discipline for the last few years. Her areas of interest are in stuff like grindhouse film, and the "American New Wave" of the 1970s, which are the some of the most un-PC films ever.

by Anonymousreply 16306/10/2020

My sister is staying with me at the moment ,and told me that students complained when she screened Chinatown because it was directed by Polanski!

by Anonymousreply 16406/10/2020

R158... i hear you about "MANDINGO".. (the market scene and the infamous bedroom seduction scene!).. what's next? cancelling my right arm workouts watching this movie and these scenes?!...

by Anonymousreply 16506/10/2020

To be honest r165, your right arm is a bit out of proportion.

by Anonymousreply 16606/10/2020

R163 Colleges are broken.

by Anonymousreply 16706/10/2020

I'm actually starting to wish that aliens would just come to earth and just eat us all. Then, the planet could just start fresh. The ultimate cleanse.

by Anonymousreply 16806/10/2020

Public opinion has shifted dramatically in the past few weeks. HBO is responding to that-- not to a shrill minority. As a historian who loves Gone with the Wind and who supports the protests, I do not care about the removal of Gone with the Wind from an app.

by Anonymousreply 16906/10/2020

I guess this means that we'll never get to see any of the musical versions of "Gone With the Wind" that have been written but never produced on Broadway.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17006/10/2020

[quote] Only 2% of the population read history books.

Yet the History Channel and Ken Burns-style historical documentaries are hugely popular. People are interested in history as long as it is comfortable and non-threatening.

by Anonymousreply 17106/10/2020

Start hording vhs copies now!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17206/10/2020

[quote] Start hording vhs copies now!

I am pretty sure the Gone with the Wind queens have already got that covered.

by Anonymousreply 17306/10/2020

People on here are so dramatic. If you love the movie so much, buy it yourself. I literally just checked iTunes and it’s still on there. Nobody’s stopping you.

This was a company’s decision to move forward.

by Anonymousreply 17406/10/2020

[quote]People on here are so dramatic. If you love the movie so much, buy it yourself. I literally just checked iTunes and it’s still on there. Nobody’s stopping you. This was a company’s decision to move forward.

I have it on Blu-ray. That's not the point. The point is content being dictated by vocal group. What's next? Get rid of gay-themed films upon demand of the Christians? Git rid of films in which the characters drink alcohol to appease Muslims? Is "Some Like it Hot" anti-trans?

by Anonymousreply 17506/10/2020

So I guess music platforms should remove all those rap songs that use the n-word too if this is the road route we’re going down, right?

by Anonymousreply 17606/10/2020

R127 From the sounds of your enraged screeching, you must be one of the Regressives that have hijacked the Liberal Democrat party and called HBO to complain that you're too weak to deal with uncomfortable topics like slavery in the antebellum south. Ugh. Just go away, weirdo. You sound sophomoric and immature. "Temporarily censored"?! You obviously know NOTHINGGG of history. Ever heard of the phrase "slippery slope" you crazed little Maoist?!!

by Anonymousreply 17706/10/2020

[R18]: Hattie MacDaniel’s Oscar acceptance was not her own improvisation, but rather a prepared speech, written and approved by MGM management. It must have felt shameful for her to recite the part about being a “credit to my race,” a standard patronizing description of black people who behaved the way whites expected.

On the other hand, and the same way she got the Oscar, she presented these other people’s words in such an emotional way that no one can be unmoved hearing them, even now, 80 years later.

McDaniel was a great actress, in that she was able to make dramatic exposition a harrowing experience. In her best scene in GWTW, when she tells Melanie of what happened to Rhett after Bonnie’s death, literally just exposition, she does it so emotionally that, watching her, we are more concerned with how this has affected her.

That woman was brilliant. I am only sorry she never got the kind of dramatic opportunities she truly deserved.

by Anonymousreply 17806/10/2020

Fiddle Dee Dee! I’ll think about this tomorrow.

by Anonymousreply 17906/10/2020

[quote]Fiddle Dee Dee! I’ll think about this tomorrow.

I may cry tomorrow, too.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18006/10/2020

"Let me be real clear: I don’t believe in censorship."

Bullshit.

Honestly, was anyone ever so stupid as to sit through GWTW and take a history lesson away from it? To me that would be like sitting through Julia for a lesson in WWII espionage. God people have gotten very literal and, frankly, just dumber I'm significant ways.

by Anonymousreply 18106/10/2020

Today Hattie McDaniel. Tomorrow Judy Garland.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18206/10/2020

R169 Wonderful for you and your authority, you're a very important person!

Where is the impulse to attempt to control what other people are allowed to watch coming from, do you think?

by Anonymousreply 18306/10/2020

Up next: Public shaming sessions. Mao style.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18406/10/2020

I'll believe these people are sincere when they start campaigning to have racist porn taken down. They won't, though, because this is yet another sad public act of propriety. Trying to stave off the mob.

by Anonymousreply 18506/10/2020

R185 It won't last. How can we stop this?

by Anonymousreply 18606/10/2020

No one in Hollywood is safe. They all better be ready.

by Anonymousreply 18706/10/2020

R184 We've been doing those on social media since at least 2016.

You can lose your career, your marriage, your friends, your dog, your apartment, your whole life in a day if you get identified as an immoral person in public. It happens to someone nationally a couple of times a week now.

The DC Bike guy got misidentified as two separate other men last week who both had their jobs threatened before they were confirmed not to be him. He ripped a sign out of a little girl's hands.

by Anonymousreply 18806/10/2020

Oh for fucks sake it’s just not on HBO Max. They didn’t burn the fucking negative! Rent or buy it and watch it to your heart’s content, but enough with melodramatic fake outrage! 🙄

by Anonymousreply 18906/10/2020

I hate fake outrage deplorables!

by Anonymousreply 19006/10/2020

What R189 said. ONE SUBSCRIPTION PLATFORM dropped it. Christ.

by Anonymousreply 19106/10/2020

R190 Like BLM?

by Anonymousreply 19206/10/2020

R191 and now allll of the other subscription platforms will be pressured because HBO already has. You really need this to be explained to you?!

by Anonymousreply 19306/10/2020

There will be a community of movie lovers like the book lovers of "Fahrenheit 451". Everyone will recite the script of their favorite movie and walk around quoting it. Whoever is lucky to be "Gone With the Wind" will shuffle, not walk, and whoever gets "The Wizard of Oz"will do that fabulously fruity skip.

by Anonymousreply 19406/10/2020

Disney + is going to temporarily remove the new gay themed pixar short "Out". Don't worry it will come back with a disclaimer.

by Anonymousreply 19506/10/2020

GWTW is a work of fiction based on truth. The fact of the matter is that slavery existed in this country. You don't get to diminish or "DECON FUCKIN' STRUCT" the damned TRUTH. It's there, hanging perfectly visible above all other things. You're pissed because it's been depicted and therefore observed by the masses? FUCK YOU! What other truths will you be requiring to be hidden to suit your own senstitivity?

by Anonymousreply 19606/10/2020

"Why does censorship bother you? You can go watch bad things in bad places with your bad self whenever you want!"

But know what we do to bad people before you do R188

by Anonymousreply 19706/10/2020

Learn what censorship is before you vomit nonsense into your next post.

by Anonymousreply 19806/10/2020

HBO max should be boycotted. Stop the fucking censorship!

by Anonymousreply 19906/10/2020

R198 Teach me please, oh wise one. What is censorship?

by Anonymousreply 20006/10/2020

Have cancelled "Roots" and Alex Haley yet, dear?

by Anonymousreply 20106/10/2020

And Glory. Gotta remove Glory. White boy leading all those Black men. So demeaning!

by Anonymousreply 20206/10/2020

[quote] Teach me please, oh wise one. What is censorship?

Government suppression of the exercise of free speech. This is not that.

by Anonymousreply 20306/10/2020

Try again R203

Censorship:

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, [bold]films[/bold], news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

by Anonymousreply 20406/10/2020

R203 Whenever SJWs get caught being racist, being sexist, or acting like fascists... time to redefine common words!

by Anonymousreply 20506/10/2020

I appreciate how you bolded films, as if that what was at issue here. Your definition omits the agent, which is the government. No one is suppressing or prohibiting HBO Max from showing the film. Therefore, not censorship.

by Anonymousreply 20606/10/2020

R206 HBO Max is responding out of fear, stop with the bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 20706/10/2020

R206 The definition excludes the word "government" because it is irrelevant to the definition of censorship.

by Anonymousreply 20806/10/2020

OMFG! It’s like this cause is like BLM for Deplorables! GWTW matters too! History is being erased 🙄🙄🙄, fuck off you dumb insufferable cunts!

by Anonymousreply 20906/10/2020

[quote] Whenever SJWs get caught being racist, being sexist, or acting like fascists... time to redefine common words!

Sure. That's what is happening here. HBO Max is acting like fascists. That's not an overstatement at all.

[quote] HBO Max is responding out of fear, stop with the bullshit.

Immaterial. And not even proven. No one is forcing them to remove it from their platform. Therefore, not censorship.

[quote] The definition excludes the word "government" because it is irrelevant to the definition of censorship.

Again, beside the point. No one, including the government, is forcing them to remove the film.

by Anonymousreply 21006/10/2020

[quote]Sure. That's what is happening here. HBO Max is acting like fascists.

Go back and read the original post S L O W L Y. BLM act like fascists, not HBO Max.

[quote]Again, beside the point. No one, including the government, is forcing them to remove the film.

No, that IS the point. HBO Max is bowing to pressure by mob deeming a film politically unacceptable, forcing them to make a choice. Indeed censorship.

by Anonymousreply 21106/10/2020

[quote] People on here are so dramatic. If you love the movie so much, buy it yourself. I literally just checked iTunes and it’s still on there. Nobody’s stopping you.

Like another poster said, this is just the beginning. Look at how quickly people caved. What will happen a couple years from now, or even a couple months from now? Will they start coming for our digital movie collections next?

by Anonymousreply 21206/10/2020

Slippery slope fallacy.

by Anonymousreply 21306/10/2020

[quote] No, that IS the point. HBO Max is bowing to pressure by mob deeming a film politically unacceptable, forcing them to make a choice. Indeed censorship.

Nobody pressured them, this is their own decision! You deplorables are simple

by Anonymousreply 21406/10/2020

R204, "censorship," in the U.S., is defined in terms of the First Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from limiting or prohibiting speech. Private companies, such as HBO, are free to speak, or not speak, as they see fit. They are not affecting your right to watch GWTW, and therefore are not censors.

by Anonymousreply 21506/10/2020

R64 I also saw Birth of a Nation in college film class. Circa 1997-1998 or so. We all knew we were watching horrible people but the historical relevance of the film was worth watching. I don't understand why people can't think critically anymore.

by Anonymousreply 21606/10/2020

R215 Censorship is bad even when it's legal.

by Anonymousreply 21706/10/2020

Well, it's not like it's Lazy Town...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21806/10/2020

Those saying this is fascism are bullshitters and are the real fascists lol. A company has every right to remove something from their platform. That is not fascism. Are these Trump supporters?

by Anonymousreply 21906/10/2020

Oh look! It’s not censorship! HBO Max is temporarily pulling it! All deplorables can focus fake outrage on another stupid topic!

From CNN:

[quote] The spokesperson added that when the film returns to HBO Max, it "will return with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions," and will be presented "as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

by Anonymousreply 22006/10/2020

It is just stupid, if it is even true?

by Anonymousreply 22106/10/2020

It is just stupid, if it is even true?

by Anonymousreply 22206/10/2020

R213 reliving his debate team glory days.

by Anonymousreply 22306/10/2020

[quote] reliving his debate team glory days.

Doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

by Anonymousreply 22406/10/2020

Why does the right suddenly think corporations shouldn’t be allowed to make their own business decisions?

by Anonymousreply 22506/10/2020

R224 T'aint a fallacy if it's a correct observation of a political tactic.

by Anonymousreply 22606/10/2020

How is temporarily pulling a movie and then putting it back with a disclaimer even an issue? Deplorables pick the stupidest most meaningless issues to fight!

by Anonymousreply 22706/10/2020

[quote]Are these Trump supporters?

No, they're those "progressive" fascists who think anything they don't agree with should be banned. Uhhhh, temporarily.

by Anonymousreply 22806/10/2020

R225 Nobody is arguing that they can't legally, they are arguing that they shouldn't.

by Anonymousreply 22906/10/2020

And yet, the corporation had all the power to make the decision they made. But the right still whines.

by Anonymousreply 23006/10/2020

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Temporarily pulling a movie and then adding it back to the library with a disclaimer is now banning? Fuck me, you deplorables are hysterical and mentally unstable! THIS IS A NON ISSUE!

by Anonymousreply 23106/10/2020

[quote] T'aint a fallacy if it's a correct observation of a political tactic.

No, it's still a fallacy.

by Anonymousreply 23206/10/2020

R229 IT’S TEMPORARY YOU DUMB FUCK! Settle down and take a Xanax!

by Anonymousreply 23306/10/2020

I think we are going through a period where common sense has evaporated!!! Let's hope it returns soon and real issues can be debated again.

by Anonymousreply 23406/10/2020

Today is Hattie McDaniel’s birthday.

by Anonymousreply 23506/10/2020

Does this mean the Gone With the Wind episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race needs to come with a trigger warning?

The left is so fucking annoying. I was on the fence but now it’s official: I’m not voting Democrat. It’s settled. They’ve lost all reason and control.

by Anonymousreply 23606/10/2020

Oh no! Someone disagrees with me, and a corporation agrees with them

It must be the end of free speech as we know it!

by Anonymousreply 23706/10/2020

[quote] I was on the fence but...

Just stop it with this transparent bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 23806/10/2020

Don't these idiots realise they are handing the election to Donald Trump?

by Anonymousreply 23906/10/2020

The world would be such a great place if Deplorables would just die!

by Anonymousreply 24006/10/2020

There it is, the “this will give the election to trump” troll

by Anonymousreply 24106/10/2020

It’s not bullshit R238. I was all in on Tulsi (smeared by TPTB) and didn’t mind steady Joe as a backup. Or Amy. Hated Kam and Liz.

They’ve surrendered to their mob. It’s insanity. Not interested in entertaining them anymore nor deluding myself.

by Anonymousreply 24206/10/2020

R239 Over Gone With The Wind? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Holy fuck, deplorables are dumber than I realized 😳

by Anonymousreply 24306/10/2020

R242 Sadly they are right!

by Anonymousreply 24406/10/2020

[quote] I was all in on Tulsi

Then you were never a Democrat.

by Anonymousreply 24506/10/2020

R234 over 2 emojis in one reply = a 12-year-old who just discovered the internet

by Anonymousreply 24606/10/2020

R246 I think your statement reiterates everything R243 said.

by Anonymousreply 24706/10/2020

You can see the impact of the regressive, crazy left here on Datalounge, particularly in regards to censorship.

Whenever a snowflake gets triggered on here, he automatically resorts to the block button rather than coming up with a counter-argument or logical response.

Whenever I think of a typical Datalounger snowflake, I think of Trigglypuff.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24806/10/2020

Sounds more like the network made up their own mind to pull it off the roster.

by Anonymousreply 24906/10/2020

Or maybe not. But they are not doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a calculated move to make themselves look woke.

by Anonymousreply 25006/10/2020

No R247, that's rule #1,284 of the internet: multiple emojis means that you're a child who can't stop pushing all the buttons.

by Anonymousreply 25106/10/2020

I feel bad for that girl (girl?) The adults around her completely failed in educating her and she has all this rage and pain she can't express. Yes, I know I'm condescending.

by Anonymousreply 25206/10/2020

[quote] Whenever a snowflake gets triggered on here, he automatically resorts to the block button rather than coming up with a counter-argument or logical response.

Only trolls care if they are blocked

by Anonymousreply 25306/10/2020

[quote] Sounds more like the network made up their own mind to pull it off the roster.

Companies can do what they want but their customers have a right to complain or boycott. However, when you have monopolies like Amazon, even that becomes impossible.

by Anonymousreply 25406/10/2020

So they pull the movie with the first black Oscar winner and only one of 2 (?) black female Oscar winners ever? who's also a plus sized female? maybe she needed to be a trans woman in a wheelchair to not be canceled.

by Anonymousreply 25506/10/2020

R3 has 70 upvotes, on a liberal site. Gone With the Wind is the top selling movie on Amazon. I think the public has spoken and it's unanimously clear.

by Anonymousreply 25606/10/2020

OMG! They are temporarily pulling Gone With The Wind and putting it back in their library with a disclaimer! I’m exhausted!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25706/10/2020

The disclaimer will be "a denouncement."

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 25806/10/2020

R253 🚫 BLOCKED 🚫

by Anonymousreply 25906/10/2020

R251 O you mean exactly as you are doing too?

by Anonymousreply 26006/10/2020

R219 is the kind of person who won't believe that we are sliding towards a dictatorship despite all evidence to the contrary until there is a boot on their backs. You would fit right in with Nazi Germany, 219.

by Anonymousreply 26106/10/2020

[quote] [R253] 🚫 BLOCKED 🚫

Good. The fewer interactions I have with assholes like you, the better.

by Anonymousreply 26206/10/2020

Ha ha. (R262) just proved my point on how fragile these snowflakes are.

by Anonymousreply 26306/10/2020

How, by not wanting anything to do with assholes like you?

by Anonymousreply 26406/10/2020

It’s not like you trolls actually add anything to the conversation

by Anonymousreply 26506/10/2020

They should've banned it years ago for being a shitty movie.

by Anonymousreply 26606/10/2020

Progressives are cancer. I've made threads about this, trying to warn you all, but nobody listened. Now, we're going to lose the election. My god, I hate you all.

by Anonymousreply 26706/10/2020

The delusion runs thick with this one

by Anonymousreply 26806/10/2020

[quote]Don't these idiots realise they are handing the election to Donald Trump?

I think it's misguided to pull the movie, even temporarily, but if this is what hands the election to Trump then we truly are lost as a country.

by Anonymousreply 26906/10/2020

It won’t be. That’s just trolls trolling.

by Anonymousreply 27006/10/2020

insanity!!!!

Being Entertained Matters

by Anonymousreply 27106/10/2020

[quote]The smartest character in the whole movie is Mammy.

I agree. Mammy was always my favorite character. She didn't put up with anybody's shit!

by Anonymousreply 27206/10/2020

You could induce a fatal heart attack in John Ridley by strapping him to a chair and subjecting him to Al Jolson's musical number "Goin' to Heaven on a Mule" (in the Warner Brothers Pre-Code gem WONDER BAR (34).

That is to say, GWTW is pretty enlightened stuff, compared to what was being thrown up on screen in the 1930s and 1940s.

by Anonymousreply 27306/10/2020

John Ridley just wants the only movie about slavery to be made available is his hacky movie from ten years ago that everybody forgot the moment after it got its affirmative action Oscar.

Instead of writing Op-Eds to get popular movies cancelled, maybe he should write a show that doesn’t get cancelled by utter public indifference.

by Anonymousreply 27406/10/2020

It’s in the top ten on iTunes right now. Ironically, HBO Max’s corporate parents owns the rights to GWTW.

They’re profiting off this while also clutching their pearls over its content.

by Anonymousreply 27506/10/2020

Honestly, it's similar to the "meltdown" when Friends was taken off of Netflix. Physical media exists, people. Buy a goddamn Blu-ray and then you never have to worry.

by Anonymousreply 27606/10/2020

R276, physical media barely exists. Everything is going out of print fast. The industry is moving towards full streaming.

by Anonymousreply 27706/10/2020

Physical media is for olds.

by Anonymousreply 27806/10/2020

R276, that’s completely different. Another company won the bid. If Friends was taken off because of the lack of black characters, that would be a similar example.

Streaming services offer content that people will see for the first time. They’re actively taking away the opportunity for people to watch it for the first time and judge for themselves instead of having to fork over twentysomething dollars to own a Blu-Ray.

by Anonymousreply 27906/10/2020

Sorry, I'm a fan of (problematic) Gone with the Wind, but equating what HBO has done here with the loss of the election is... well... terribly Prissy.

by Anonymousreply 28006/10/2020

What do you expect from the right wing wussies?

by Anonymousreply 28106/10/2020

R279 I meant how it's still WIDELY available (see photo at R51)

R277 strongly disagree. While streaming is strong, physical has a literal long shelf life.

by Anonymousreply 28206/10/2020

The deplorable fake outrage is delicious!

by Anonymousreply 28306/10/2020

R166.. actually while i'm right handed i CAN and DO use the left arm for workouts too! lol!..

by Anonymousreply 28406/10/2020

Physical media is NOT dead. That is a myth.

Go to Blu-ray.com and you'll see 20 people in one thread debating how good or bad the new Urban Cowboy Blu-ray looks. Labels like Criterion, Shout, Kino Lorber, Scorpion, and Warner Archive are very popular. And labels like Criterion and Shout/Scream are beloved for their extensive bonus features - deleted scenes, commentary, documentaries, etc. When their titles go out of print, they go for high prices.

I still have my Gone with the Wind blu-ray steelbook and special edition DVD book case. These will now be much sought after.

by Anonymousreply 28506/10/2020

[quote]While streaming is strong, physical has a literal long shelf life.

You don't have to dust streaming.

by Anonymousreply 28606/10/2020

I don't know anyone who still buys DVDs, and I'm not all that young (Gen X).

by Anonymousreply 28706/10/2020

I personally buy some boutique Blu-Rays like Criterion or Scream Factory, but that’s only if they have very interesting bonus content. Otherwise, I’ve been converting my library to streaming for a few years now. It’s spoiled me. I can watch what I want with the click of a couple buttons and now the task of searching my library, setting up a player, putting in a disc, and sitting through various previous and menus seems tedious.

by Anonymousreply 28806/10/2020

Has Miss Lesley Ann Warren put out a statement?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28906/10/2020

R287 I'm a millennial and many collectors are your age. Hell, there's even VHS nostalgia, which I never understand.

R288 I enjoy streaming and Netflix/Prime Video are great but physical is: always better video quality, not dependent on your internet connection, and not subject to the whims of the streaming companies. There was a whole backlash about iTunes removing films from people's libraries with no refunds. Why do you have to set up your player every time?

by Anonymousreply 29006/10/2020

There’s a whole bunch of stuff I’m glad I bought on dvd when it was available. Mostly theater stuff, but some old films too.

I have eclectic tastes, and nobody will ever be able to create a library for it other than me.

by Anonymousreply 29106/10/2020

[quote] Progressives are cancer.

Oh, so you aren't a Democrat.

[quote] I've made threads about this, trying to warn you all, but nobody listened. Now, we're going to lose the election.

Oh, wait, now you are a Democrat?

[quote] My god, I hate you all.

Oh, a Republican. And a Trumpian one at that.

by Anonymousreply 29206/10/2020

Streaming quality isn't great - especially when the interwebs are clogged because everyone's stuck at home. If i want to see a movie again I don't need to remember what service has it, if they still do. Just walk over to the media room and find it on the shelves. Then again, I still buy vinyl and cds, too.

by Anonymousreply 29306/10/2020

Lady Gagas do what you want to still unavailable on Spotify. That was the best song on artpop

by Anonymousreply 29406/10/2020

[quote]So this is why I couldn't find it. One of the reasons I subscribed to HBOMax was because of their film library and one of my favorite movies is Gone With The Wind. I'm am disturbed and annoyed that they would remove a masterpiece from their collection because of some SJW whining about it. Content warning? Fuck that. I'm going to write HBO and complain.

It was the same for me. The film library was the main reason I subscribed too. I find it ridiculous whenever someone complains about certain TV episodes or movies being being aired on TV channels or streaming services, no one is forcing them to watch. There are some movies and TV shows that annoy me due to homophobic or racist content, but I don't feel they should be banned and if people chose to watch that content than that's on them.

by Anonymousreply 29506/10/2020

Again, you hand-wringing ninnies, it’s hasn’t been banned or removed, they just added a disclaimer to the beginning of it.

by Anonymousreply 29606/10/2020

R274 I had a friend who referred to 12 Years a Slave as, "The Passion of the Christ for Liberals."

by Anonymousreply 29706/10/2020

R285 My sister (I'm the person who keeps bringing up their film academic sister) told me that specialty companies like Criterion and Shout! Factory are actually thriving now because they're audience has always been the kind of nerds who will always buy physical media. She also said the DVD market bottoming out has led to a lot of specialty stuff being released because before there was little market for it, but now that "little market" is the market buying physical media.

by Anonymousreply 29806/10/2020

Can't the far left stay sane for the 5 months needed to make sure Trump is done.

by Anonymousreply 29906/10/2020

No such thing as bad publicity.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30006/10/2020

The Simpsons predicted it (well, the censorship element at least):

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30106/10/2020

I'm sure most people upset about this haven't even heard of HBOMax or weren't interested in subscribing anyway. However, I agree with the principle that art should be viewed within its historical context. However, considering how profitable this decision was for the films parent company, perhaps we'll see this type of temporary banning more often.

by Anonymousreply 30206/10/2020

Perhaps these companies will realize there is actually more money to be made through physical sales than with streaming.

by Anonymousreply 30306/10/2020

[quote]In her Oscar speech, Hattie McDaniel said that she hoped that she would be a credit to her race. And she proved that she was, being the first black Oscar winner.

Are you serious??? I'm sure McDaniel was pressured to say that in some way, and I've always thought the fact that she was is one of the very worst of all of the horrendous aspects of GONE WITH THE WIND. Because, if you have a brain in your head and you think about her statement for more than two seconds, you can clearly see how incredibly offensive and abhorrent it is, even though the language is framed in a "positive" way.

[quote]Exactly. Trump or not, this is here to stay. It's going to get worse.

A friend of mine said, and I completely agree, that THE WORST thing about Trump -- of all the shockingly horrible, disgusting, and repugnant things about him -- is that, through so many of his own hateful statements and actions, he has given other people license to express and act on their own hateful thoughts. It's not that there was any less racism, etc. before Trump was President, but I think a lot of even the worst racists (and homophobes, et al.) felt at least a modicum of restraint over what opinions they could express in public. Now that is gone, and maybe it is forever. And the irony is that the world and the media are being even MORE meticulous in policing what people on the left say, even as the hateful yahoos on the far right freely express their hatred with no consequences.

by Anonymousreply 30406/10/2020

It IS a form of censorship. Content is being deleted due to protests and calls for political correctness. What it is NOT is a constitutional violation because the government is not the one deleting the content (at least not yet). But the far left wants to do the same thing as the Nazis and Mao-ists in China and that is to ban material with which they disagree. They want to retcon US history! And some people here are ok with that.

HBO is free to cave to pressure and delete content, just like I was free to cancel my HBO. And when my contract is up, I will cancel my DirectTV because its also owned by AT & T now.

by Anonymousreply 30506/10/2020

R304 Trump similarly mobilized the radical left who thought they can capitalize on the constant outrage. Social media didn't help either.

by Anonymousreply 30606/10/2020

Again, you stupid fucks, nothing was banned, nothing was permanently pulled.

by Anonymousreply 30706/10/2020

[quote] It's not that there was any less racism, etc. before Trump was President, but I think a lot of even the worst racists (and homophobes, et al.) felt at least a modicum of restraint over what opinions they could express in public.

The US and the world is becoming more extremist. Without Trump, you still would have had Brexit and the populist uprising. People like Hillary, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie were rejected. The cultural climate changed for better or worse.

by Anonymousreply 30806/10/2020

It's available on at least 15 other streaming services, not to mention DVD and Blu-ray. So "deleted"

by Anonymousreply 30906/10/2020

[quote] Are you serious??? I'm sure McDaniel was pressured to say that in some way, and I've always thought the fact that she was is one of the very worst of all of the horrendous aspects of GONE WITH THE WIND.

“After hearing her name announced, McDaniel eschewed the speech Selznick had prepared for her, and delivered one she’d written with the help of Ruby Berkley Goodwin, a Black writer and close friend.”

Please just remove yourself from the gene pool r304, since you can’t be bothered to a simple google search.

by Anonymousreply 31006/10/2020

R156 I reckon current day kids in US High Schools would prefer a comic book rather than GWTW which is as fat as a phone book.

And I bet they'll consider it as just a soap opera for females only.

by Anonymousreply 31106/10/2020

What's a comic book?

by Anonymousreply 31206/10/2020

Damnit, you motherfuckers! I need the residuals!

by Anonymousreply 31306/10/2020

Has Carol Burnett issued an abject apology yet?

by Anonymousreply 31406/10/2020

This is how the left always blows it.

The moment art is subjected to socio-political demands, you know you're over the line from reform to the tyranny that always follows revolution.

GWTW is one of America's greatest cinematic achievements. So is John Ford's "The Searchers". That isn't politically correct by today's lights, either.

HBO should be ashamed of itself giving in to this kind of mob ideology.

If you wake up on 9 November to find yourselves stuck with The Donald for four more years, this is why.

Nearly every 19th century composer of note in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, was antisemitic. Wagner heads the list. Stravinsky was a virulent anti-semite. Are we eliminating The Rites of Spring, Pulcinella Suite, The Firebird, and Petrouchka from all repertoire?! Composer Vincent D'Indy was also a virulent anti-semite.

Arturo Toscanini refused to conduct at Bayreuth and published in the TIMES the letter expressing his polite decline of the invitation to do so from Cosima Wagner. That didn't stop Toscanini from conducting the "Siegfried Idyll" in Munich, where Wagner composed it.

Do we throw out Chopin? Tchaikovsky? Do we stop reading Ezra Pound? Do we stop reading Oliver Twist because of Fagin? Do we never show the tremendous David Lean version of the film again because of the nose Alec Guiness wore as Fagin?

This is the fascist left, doing what it always does.

Shame on HBO for giving in to a form of appeasement for what is naked fascism, shame shame shame.

by Anonymousreply 31506/10/2020

There’s nothing fascist about it. Just shut up annoying asses.

by Anonymousreply 31606/10/2020

[quote]nothing was permanently pulled

Pics please.

by Anonymousreply 31706/10/2020

Haven't read the entire thread, so apologies in advance if I'm expressing an already-stated viewpoint. I haven't read Gone With the Wind nor have I seen the movie but as a person of color, I understand the difference between confederate statues erected to commemorate horrible people and works of art that are products of their time and should be examined and appreciated as such. People aren't making that distinction when they petition to have these things banned. If we don't allow art to have its historical context, then everything from the past should be destroyed by today's standards. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was considered ground-breaking and progressive when it first came out, but it's actually ham-fisted and racist. Nevertheless, it's an important film and one of Sidney Poitier's most memorable. Should artifacts like that be cancelled because they don't meet today's standards of wokeness? Very few things from the past will.

by Anonymousreply 31806/10/2020

[quote] Should artifacts like that be cancelled because they don't meet today's standards of wokeness?

No one is cancelling anything. Just stop.

by Anonymousreply 31906/10/2020

I hate that word “problematic”. Its the word that is used when something really isnt clearly bad/racist/misogynist, but SJWs who know nothing and cant be bothered to read may possibly react to negatively. I actually read GWTW, its an entertaining silly read, the book made it clear that the racist southern losers are the only simpletons nostalgic for the south, and that they are losers forever, Scarlett and Rhett gave no fucks about the south, Mammy was the most sympathetic character, the klan are horrible people. The worst thing is really the depiction of the slaves as very simple people and one dimensional- which makes me think the author probably didnt know any black american at all. I am not american, but the stereotype that was ingrained in me from the book are what big stupid losers these southerners were who refuse to move on. I thought it was a sort of southern version of that other “nostalgia” book about old times- Age of Innocence, of which the point was, old times are terrible, world is moving on whether you like it or not.

by Anonymousreply 32006/10/2020

This is the introduction that Whoopi Goldberg gives on the DVD release of the old Tom & Jerry cartoons. I'm guessing HBO are going to add something along these lines to the beginning of GwtW?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32106/10/2020

I hate that word “SJWs.” It's the word that is used when someone doesn't have an actual argument.

by Anonymousreply 32206/10/2020

This is beyond fucking ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 32306/10/2020

R322 You sound passionate about your hatred. I suppose you also hate 'Virtue-Signaller'.

What word would you use for people who take pleasure in taking offence for other people they don't know.

by Anonymousreply 32406/10/2020

That's your definition of SJW? You're special.

by Anonymousreply 32506/10/2020

R325 What's your definition of SJW?

by Anonymousreply 32606/10/2020

Will it continue to air on TCM?

by Anonymousreply 32706/10/2020

"Screw Lincoln and his reconciliation plans, look where that got him."

You're such an asshole. Lincoln got it right: reconciliation, reconstruction, PEACE. I suppose you would be in favor of death, violence, and continued hatred. You are one sad piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 32806/10/2020

" The professor gave about a 30-45 minute lecture about its importance as filmmaking, but its overall grossness as a film. And it is...really gross."

If there is one thing GWTW is NOT, it's "gross." It's an amazing piece of filmmaking. By the way, do you know other words beside "gross?"

by Anonymousreply 32906/10/2020

All they have to do is take out the "Isn't rape just so much fun" and the "Slavery was a great way of life for black people" scenes and they can show it without the politically correct force going after their throats.

Or the assholes can simply put a disclaimer that this is a work of FICTION that was made 81 years ago and if anyone without a brain is watching they should put it in that context and those of us with a brain realized that the first time we saw it, many of us being children at the time and still we realized it.

by Anonymousreply 33006/10/2020

"I'm sure McDaniel was pressured to say that in some way."

You are? Yes, I'm sure you knew exactly what was going on in Hattie McDaniel's life in 1940. SNORT.

by Anonymousreply 33106/10/2020

That's what I don't get r330. All these idiot SJWs act like GWTW and all the other things they don't like were made yesterday. They never, ever put it into the context of the particular time it was made and look at it through an historical context. It's so simple.

by Anonymousreply 33206/10/2020

Exactly R332. I took a History of Films class in college and one of the films they showed was Birth of a Nation. We discussed all the aspects of it, including the racism. We didn't just throw it away. It made for very good discussion besides being enjoyed for a well made film and a film of its time. Intelligent people do realize that and want to discuss including the people of color in the class. This is what educated people do. GWTW is a masterpiece of a film with fabulous acting, and those aspects should not be lost on future generations, nor should the racist and glorifying rape aspects. It should be discussed, not banned.

by Anonymousreply 33306/10/2020

Exactly, r333. Nothing should be banned. Watch or read it, and discuss the times it was made in, and talk about how/why the times have changed. As you said, that's what educated, thinking people do. This mania for banning everything that has elements we in modern society find unpleasant is childish. Talking and having conversations and learning the how, when and why of these works is so important.

by Anonymousreply 33406/10/2020

I just watched “La Cage Aux Folles II” on TV (MGM channel)and it featured a whole scene with Albin in straight up blackface. It was kind of a shock, especially with the recent crackdowns on potentially racist content. I have no clue how channels go about choosing their programming but I do wonder whether it could have been deliberate or it just slipped by.

by Anonymousreply 33506/10/2020

[quote] While streaming is strong, physical has a literal long shelf life.

No it doesn’t. There are very little stores still selling them. Best Buy even dropped selling CDs. We are in the streaming age. Blu-ray didn’t take off the way the thought it would.

by Anonymousreply 33606/10/2020

Lincoln wanted them shipped back to Africa and said he didn’t want the negro to ever hold a position of power. Face it, all our presidents have been assholes except for maybe Obama.

by Anonymousreply 33706/10/2020

The movie is now #2 on iTunes. Seems like this move backfired for the already struggling HBOMax.

by Anonymousreply 33806/10/2020

[quote] The worst thing is really the depiction of the slaves as very simple people and one dimensional- which makes me think the author probably didnt know any black american at all.

She was raised Upper-Middle to Upper Class in Georgia, so she knew some, but mainly as servants. She was raised surrounded by white people who lived through and fought in the war. That shaped her entire imagination. She said she was ten years old before she found out the South had actually lost. Much of GWTW is based on the stories she heard and learned during her childhood.

I would love to be able to read Margaret Mitchell's lost novelette Ropa Carmagin, about a white southern woman who falls in love with a biracial man. She was a fascinating woman and I wish she left more information. Some things we know about her is that like Scarlett, she scandalized Atlanta society. We also know that her first love was probably homosexual. And that when she did get married she, her husband, and their group of friends shared a strong interest in erotica and pornography.

Also, she gave rather a lot to the historically black Morehouse College, MLK Jr.'s Alma Mater. She gave little at first, $80(around $1272 in today's money), but seems to have become more generous when a longtime family servant, became sick and died of cancer. MM said she viewed the woman as family and took charge of her care. She found it impossible to find a hospital with a bed for a black woman. After that she donated $1000($13,283) towards the building of a wing for black patients at Grady Hospital, and $2000($26,566) towards a scholarship for the medical education of young black men, if they would practice medicine in Georgia. After she died another $3,000( $29,950) was donated. And in 2002, after her connection to Morehouse had been made public, her nephew and head of the MM estate made one of the largest individual donations in Morehouse history of $1.5 million and the MM chair in humanities and social sciences was created.

by Anonymousreply 33906/10/2020

Overreaching.

by Anonymousreply 34006/10/2020

R333 you...enjoyed Birth of a Nation? Technical merits and historical significance aside, it's absolute garbage.

by Anonymousreply 34106/10/2020

R341 One interesting thing about The Birth of Nation is that if you watch the miniseries The North and the South, you will notice the basic story is the same. It is built around two families one Northern and one Southern(South Carolina), with romantic entanglements and friendships between them. I can't believe John Jakes was never called out on it. Though of course the North & South is nowhere near as racist.

by Anonymousreply 34206/10/2020

R330 the "Slavery was a great way of life for black people" scenes make up a big part of the film...

by Anonymousreply 34306/10/2020

R343 Actually it's not, there is a few scenes of field slaves at the beginning and the young slaves fanning the white women as they sleep at the BBQ. Then there is Mammy, Pork, Prissy, and Uncle Peter, as house slaves but there isn't a focus on life being great for them. Slavery then basically ends around the time of intermission.

by Anonymousreply 34406/10/2020

The story in the movie is told from the POV of the plantation owners. The servants, the yankees, the carpetbaggers are all portrayed in the way that the main characters saw them. If the same scenes and the story had been told from the POV of the servants, the white characters would have appeared very different. So the movie is not trying to show how slave and servant life actually was, it’s deliberately showing how the whites perceived reality. Educated people should be able to understand that.

by Anonymousreply 34506/10/2020

R345 Exactly!

by Anonymousreply 34606/10/2020

T'ain't fittin', jus' t'ain't fittin'.

by Anonymousreply 34706/10/2020

Will fewer people be gwine to Georgia to see the sights?

by Anonymousreply 34806/10/2020

R338, not exactly. They own the movie so they’re actually profiting off this. But it’s bad PR for a new streaming service that they’ll take down content the second anyone has a problem with it.

by Anonymousreply 34906/10/2020

Slippery slope "fallacy" you say?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35006/11/2020

[quote]Slavery then basically ends around the time of intermission.

Except of course, it doesn't.

The former slaves all remain slavishly devoted to their former masters. They still work for them and treat them in EXACTLY the same way they did before and during the war.

by Anonymousreply 35106/11/2020

[quote]My sister is staying with me at the moment ,and told me that students complained when she screened Chinatown because it was directed by Polanski!

And if your sister were any good at teaching, she'd have anticipated that before showing them, then used the opportunity to discuss the age-old discussion of the art versus the artist.

My degree was also in Literature with a focus on the Modernist era and crime and thrillers, specifically pulp crime novels, and even in the 1990s we were discussing the artist, their beliefs, their actions, and their lives in the context of the art created. Either you don't really have a sister (which is what I suspect, because the "my [relative] is in academia and they said woke SJWs are ruining the world" is a really old internet trope) or you have a sister who isn't even close to ready to get a PhD, but probably will anyway.

by Anonymousreply 35206/11/2020

Neither the novel nor the movie were created in a time when academia, let alone everyday educated people, were interrogating movies or books (i.e. the text) from the perspective of whether the white narrators were reliable when it came to depictions of slaves or people of color.

The white experience was at the time the default experience. No, "educated people would have known this was simply the white perspective" is not true. This was a time when most people didn't even notice or care that Hattie McDaniel couldn't even sit with the rest of the cast on the night she won her Oscar, and a time when hundreds of newspapers across the country objected to her being given an award of that caliber.

What people are objecting to NOW is that the film and book both showed only the white, romanticized, racist version of the story, and the movie itself has become such a popular cultural touchstone and cliche that no one bothers to look past its shiny, glossy exterior.

by Anonymousreply 35306/11/2020

R333, with respect, taking an entry-level survey course in film does not make you educated in film theory or film studies.

We all have our personal preferences, but Birth of a Nation has, even for the time, some pretty rotten storytelling and acting that would be too broad for a Mack Sennett parody. Costuming and makeup were slapdash at best. There were some really impressive visuals but I have to say that, after spending years writing about silent films and being part of the silent film community, I haven't come across more than a few people who legitimately like the film. They may like clips and certain scenes, but the whole film? Very rare.

by Anonymousreply 35406/11/2020

[quote]Or the assholes can simply put a disclaimer that this is a work of FICTION that was made 81 years ago and if anyone without a brain is watching they should put it in that context

Which is exactly what they're doing, for god's sake.

by Anonymousreply 35506/11/2020

I mean, R351. That happened in history. When the slaves were freed, they still had limited options. Many stayed because they had some security and housing.

“Sold their soul to the company store” is an embarrassing oversimplification. But I guess your only understanding of history comes from Twitter infographs.

by Anonymousreply 35606/11/2020

Probably, R327. They still sell copies of it. And has been mentioned, it's on iTunes, Amazon, Google, YouTube and about ten more streaming services right now.

by Anonymousreply 35706/11/2020

"But it’s bad PR for a new streaming service that they’ll take down content the second anyone has a problem with it."

Never before, have I meant this so much:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35806/11/2020

What r353 and r358 said.

by Anonymousreply 35906/11/2020

I'm confused. So the left is now corporations can do what they want, leave them alone. But weren't we suppose to boycott companies that gave money to hate groups ? So which is it ? Can I finally try Chick Fil A ?

by Anonymousreply 36006/11/2020

Times HAVE changed - some will entrench themselves in the mire of ignorance most willfully, and others will seek, attain, and fulfill themselves with greater knowledge and understanding brandishing their sense of humility like a beacon light alerting all that all is well here....

Alabama native and Alabama State alumni and CNN White House correspondent Kaitlin Collins and her black boyfriend

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36106/11/2020

[quote]Sold their souls to the company store?

I believe that was miners or settlers.

by Anonymousreply 36206/11/2020

R351 concerning the character of Mammy. Many of them stayed with their former owners because of the connection they had with them. We are talking about women, many of whom did not have children of their own but had raised the white children their entire life. It was a time when upperclass women were not hands on mothers, so rather than the mammy being the “second” mother in many instances she was the primary mother. Sometimes, like in GWTW, they had raised multiple generations of a family. That creates a bond. We might view that bond differently, today, but it happened not only in the movies but in real life.

by Anonymousreply 36306/11/2020

I want a disclaimer in front of I love Lucy stating that spousal abuse is wrong. I'm still scarred by Ricky spanking Lucy.

by Anonymousreply 36406/11/2020

This is what happens when you try to graft current day feelings and emotions on to people who lived 50, 100, 200 years ago. The context is lost. We have a lot of people making simple assumptions that are impossible to make about complex humans.

I get annoyed at the people who try to diminish actors like Hattie McDaniel, Louise Beavers and Mantan Moreland among others for the roles they played. Those were the roles that were available. They got to practice their craft. There is nothing shameful about it.

by Anonymousreply 36506/11/2020

We'll always have SCARLETT!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36606/11/2020

[quote]I want a disclaimer in front of I love Lucy stating that spousal abuse is wrong. I'm still scarred by Ricky spanking Lucy.

In the 90s, there was a discussion about digitally removing the smoking in I Love Lucy (and the movement even got Lucie Arnaz to say that she didn't like all the smoking in the show). I don't know what they would have digitally replaced when Lucy puts her fingers to her mouth.

by Anonymousreply 36706/11/2020

I think it’s disgusting that privileged white people are having meltdowns over Gone With The Wind being temporarily removed from one streaming service to add disclaimers when black people across this country are still struggling hard in every aspect. People are really showing themselves.

by Anonymousreply 36806/11/2020

[quote]I don't know what they would have digitally replaced when Lucy puts her fingers to her mouth.

Vegan kale bars.

by Anonymousreply 36906/11/2020

[quote]I don't know what they would have digitally replaced when Lucy puts her fingers to her mouth.

Lucy's tongue flicking in and out of her mouth.

by Anonymousreply 37006/11/2020

THE DVD AND BLU RAYS ARE SOLD OUT EVERYWHERE! UNBELIEVABLE!

by Anonymousreply 37106/11/2020

I remember when liberals where fighting against labels on music, now when it fits their agenda it's they are fine with a "little disclaimer". It's just one streaming service go to another. The same logic, the bakery won't make your wedding cake, just go to another. The business has a right to do it. You all keep saying that about HBO Max that has to apply to these other businesses.

by Anonymousreply 37206/11/2020

[quote]I remember when liberals where fighting against labels on music, now when it fits their agenda it's they are fine with a "little disclaimer"

It's almost like it's a different generation and not literally the same exact people

by Anonymousreply 37306/11/2020

Lady A says hi, bitches!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37406/11/2020

Do white people not realize black people are laughing at them ? They don't give a shit about this country band's name nor about some 80 year old movie.

by Anonymousreply 37506/11/2020

" Though of course the North & South is nowhere near as racist."

The tv mini-series "North and South" was a big budget soap opera. The books it was based on were trash; pure soap opera, BAD soap opera. The characters were all cardboard cutouts; none of them came to life like the characters in GWTW did. And get this: John Jakes named two of the female characters (one sister is "good"; the other one is "bad") "Brett" and "Ashton." Hmm...where have I heard names similar to that? By the way Jakes also featured in his sweeping narrative of the Civil War a homosexual character who is psychotic. It's implied that he likes sex with men because he's the result of incest between a woman and her father. The character's name is...BENT. Anyway, if you like trash reading, the "North and South" trilogy might be entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 37606/11/2020

R376 I agree they are both trash. I find the tv version fun trash. But, I wasn't comparing it to GWTW. I was comparing it to The Birth of a Nation. The basic storyline is very similar between N&S and Birth of a Nation. No matter how trashy it is, it IS less racist and better acted than The Birth of a Nation.

by Anonymousreply 37706/11/2020

I always thought it was funny that Bertha Venation was on a list of drag names Harvey Fierstein thought up.

Of course, this was back in the day when drag was a form of entertainment and not a lifestyle.

by Anonymousreply 37806/11/2020

Miss Scarlett, dem trashy niggers done runned away an' some of dem went off wid de Yankees an'--

by Anonymousreply 37906/11/2020

R379 Novel has quotes like that said by the few black characters. IIRC Uncle Peter character also had some "I will always belong to Miss Pitty" lines in the book.

However, it must be said that in passing it is acknowledged that out of 100 slaves only 3 stayed at Tara after the war. That quote by Pork is in reply to that. All the field slaves and some of the house servants too run away.

by Anonymousreply 38006/11/2020

R379 That reminds me of something GWTW does show that was true to life, but gets glossed over. Not only was there a divide between house slaves and field slaves, there was a divide between whites. Remember, how Mammy calls Emmie Slattery white trash. No one corrects her for talking harshly about a white person. In the social hierarchy of the pre-Civil War South, it basically looked like this 1)Upper Class whites 2) Middle Class Whites 3) Free Blacks 4)House Slaves 5)White Trash 6)Field Slaves. It helps to explain why Appalachia was on the whole pro-Union, as it was made up mainly of people that was considered white trash.

After the war, is when it became more focused on black and white. Though it must be remembered that Jim Crow didn't fully arrive until a couple of decades after Reconstruction ended. One of the reasons was that the white elite became alarmed that the freedmen and the white trash would form a political alliance against them, so they used Jim Crow to separate them. Especially after the election of Gov. Daniel Lindsay Russell in North Carolina, which was accomplished in just that manner. Jim Crow, at least initially, was as much about controlling the white trash as about controlling the black population. For instance, many poor whites were disenfranchised by literacy tests and property qualifications along with the vast majority of black voters. And, whenever the white cotton mill workers would start talking about unionization or striking, the go-to tactic was to play them against the black population. The mill owners and political leaders would simply tell the poor whites to shut up and get back to work, or they would replace them with cheaper black workers. Segregation hurt and kept the Southern poor oppressed regardless of race.

I don't think it is a coincidence that MLK, Jr. was assassinated not during the height of his civil rights campaigning but when he was working to start the multiracial Poor People's Campaign. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories about other assassinations but I do think MLK's was part of a wider conspiracy to keep the poor separated by race. Because the last thing any person in power wanted was for them to combine as one force.

by Anonymousreply 38106/11/2020

I just found the trailer for the 75th anniversary Blu-Ray release of Gone with the Wind. At the beginning, it compares GwtW with three other films, the last of which is... well, watch for yourselves.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38206/11/2020

LMFAO, The Notebook?!? It would have been better if they said "but AFTER Birth of a Nation" instead.

by Anonymousreply 38306/11/2020

I think they just thought Southern + romance, so they went with The Notebook, because it is a recent very popular Southern romance.

by Anonymousreply 38406/11/2020

"Remember, how Mammy calls Emmie Slattery white trash. "

Mammy also called Rhett Butler "trash." She explodes when Scarlett tells her she's going to marry Rhett: "Mahyin' trash! Yas'm, Ah said trash! Doan go tellin' me he come from fine folkses. Dat don't mek no diffunce. Trash come outer the high places same as de low and he trash!" She also calls him (and Scarlett) "a mule in a horse harness": "You kin polish a mule's feets an' shine his hide an' put brass all over his harness an' hitch him ter a fine cah' ige. But he a mule jes' the same. He doan fool nobody." When Scarlett tells Rhett what Mammy said Rhett just laughs and says "I have never heard a profound truth expressed so succinctly." Mammy was right, as always.

by Anonymousreply 38506/11/2020

[quote]I don't know what they would have digitally replaced when Lucy puts her fingers to her mouth.

Ricky's big Cuban pinga.

by Anonymousreply 38606/11/2020

[quote]r3 Ridiculous. It’s an important piece of film history. This is the left's version of burning books.

Wow. THAT'S a stretch.

It's not like they're destroying all copies in existence. You just rent or buy it somewhere else.

by Anonymousreply 38706/11/2020

R385 And, remember that Mammy is the only person, other than perhaps Melanie, that Rhett cares about their opinion. He doesn't care what anyone else thinks about him, but he wants HER approval.

by Anonymousreply 38806/11/2020

Who’s going to call Mo’nique to tell her that they are editing out the part of her acceptance speech in which she thanks Hattie McDaniel?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38906/11/2020

R389 She specifically wore gardenias in her hair as a tribute to Hattie McDaniel. She is a hero of hers, and she has long sought to make a bio-pic playing her. This controversy might help bring that to fruition.

by Anonymousreply 39006/11/2020

"However, it must be said that in passing it is acknowledged that out of 100 slaves only 3 stayed at Tara after the war. That quote by Pork is in reply to that. All the field slaves and some of the house servants too run away."

Yes, so much for assumption that in GWTW ALL of the slaves are docile, simple minded and content. In the novel almost all of the slaves on every plantation run off when the Yankees come through. Only a few of them stay. And although Prissy is a birdbrain and Big Sam is somewhat mentally challenged two of the wisest, strongest characters in GWTW are Mammy and Peter.

by Anonymousreply 39106/11/2020

R391 One thing I liked about Alexandria Ripley's sequel Scarlett, is that Big Sam becomes a major builder in Atlanta, building rows of new houses. He and Scarlett form a type of partnership because he buys his lumber from her sawmills.

by Anonymousreply 39206/11/2020

At least now they can remake it.

by Anonymousreply 39306/11/2020

R390 I've seen other singers wear gardenias in their hair.

R382 That short clip seems to capture all the beautiful images from that 3 hour movie. Vivien WAS wonderfully pretty (for a woman) then.

by Anonymousreply 39406/11/2020

R394 Yes, others have worn them but HM specifically wore them the night she won Best Supporting Actress and Mo'nique has said she wore them that night in tribute to HM because she was up for the same award.

by Anonymousreply 39506/11/2020

" One thing I liked about Alexandria Ripley's sequel Scarlett, is that Big Sam becomes a major builder in Atlanta, building rows of new houses. He and Scarlett form a type of partnership because he buys his lumber from her sawmills."

That's yet another aspect of "Scarlett" that was ridiculous. Big Sam was a child-man; no way did he have the mental capacity to be a businessman. And Scarlett NEVER would have formed a "partnership" with a black man. The characters in "Scarlett" were, as one critic stated, NOT the ones that were in GWTW, even though they had the same names.

by Anonymousreply 39606/11/2020

Calm your caftans. I still have my Scarlett edition Blu-ray on my shelf.

by Anonymousreply 39706/11/2020

Even French and Saunders' GWTW spoof has been scrubbed. Ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 39806/11/2020

This has been on the cards for the last 10 years or so. The film’s relevance is truly only for its production values and the performance of Vivienne Leigh, though there are some significant supporting performances including McDaniels’.

I have it on Blu-ray. Can watch it anytime I want.

by Anonymousreply 39906/11/2020

R396 You might be right about Big Sam's mental capacity, in the original novel. But, I think you are wrong about Scarlett. The only color she really cared about was green, as in money. If a black man was going to buy up all the lumber her mills could produce, she would have jumped at the opportunity. Just like she had no problem working with Yankee Carpetbaggers as long as they had the cash. She already knew Atlanta society looked down upon her, but she was determined to do whatever she had to, to never be poor again, after the devastation of the war.

by Anonymousreply 40006/11/2020

Now pulling that Ripley debacle, that I could get behind.

I'd write the disclaimer myself: This is a piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 40106/11/2020

R399 You have been misspelling Vivien's name for 3 years now!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40206/11/2020

The Wizard of Oz is next

by Anonymousreply 40306/11/2020

[quote][R390] I've seen other singers wear gardenias in their hair.

Yes, Hattie's rendition of Pickannies Heaven was much better than Kate Smith's.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40406/11/2020

[quote] And, remember that Mammy is the only person, other than perhaps Melanie, that Rhett cares about their opinion.

Mammy was the only person, other than Belle, who Rhett rode like an old mare when Scarlett wouldn’t give him any.

by Anonymousreply 40506/11/2020

[quote]Mammy also called Rhett Butler "trash."

Changed her mind pretty damn quick when Rhett gave her those red panties from Victoria's Secret, didn't she?

by Anonymousreply 40606/11/2020

Mammy was the only person who would tell Rhett Butler to go fuck himself. She didn't give a shit.

by Anonymousreply 40706/11/2020

[quote]It IS a form of censorship. Content is being deleted due to protests and calls for political correctness.

Nothing has been deleted. The film has not been deleted. It is available in multiple formats, and has been temporarily removed from ONE platform.

by Anonymousreply 40806/12/2020

[quote]Even French and Saunders' GWTW spoof has been scrubbed. Ridiculous.

It's on Britbox still but for some reason is listed as episode 4. Looks like it's the "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" episode that has been removed from Britbox, not the GWTW episode.

It's still on the BBC One website too, along with the "Gentlemen" episode that Britbox is missing.

But keep getting hysterical, it's a good look for you.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40906/12/2020

No Rose, its not on Britbox.

by Anonymousreply 41006/12/2020

R410 It might depend on which Britbox. There is a separate service in the UK that is different from the US/Canada version.

by Anonymousreply 41106/12/2020

Watch Hattie McDaniel's acting in this scene. It's so natural, unusual for the era.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41206/12/2020

It is precisely that scene that won her the Oscar. It is heartbreaking and genuine.

by Anonymousreply 41306/12/2020

It is precisely that scene that won her the Oscar. It is heartbreaking and genuine.

by Anonymousreply 41406/12/2020

Goddam it, why does this site allow double posts? So annoying.

by Anonymousreply 41506/12/2020

Mammy was the original honey badger.

by Anonymousreply 41606/12/2020

Does anyone know where Hattie McDaniel's Oscar ended up?

by Anonymousreply 41706/12/2020

The cynic in me thinks this was a PR stunt because it's sold out all over and still available on at least a dozen streaming sites

by Anonymousreply 41806/12/2020

R417 She gave it to Howard University in DC, some allege that civil rights protestors stole it and threw it in the Potomac. But a professor at the George Washington School of Law did an investigation and believes that Howard just accidentally lost it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41906/12/2020

R418 The HBO MAX head was such a douche today, saying it should have never been put on the service without a disclaimer in the first place. If he really believed that, why didn't he do it to begin with? Disney+ made sure to slap one on their offerings that might cause offense. And, if he is somehow ashamed of the film, why did HBO MAX use clips from it in their incessant commercials to get people to sign up to the service?

by Anonymousreply 42006/12/2020

Sixteen Candles is a beloved classic and it features THE HERO offering his unconscious girlfriend to another guy, not to mention Long Duk Dong.

by Anonymousreply 42106/12/2020

SIxteen Candles is "beloved"? By who?

by Anonymousreply 42206/12/2020

Sixteen Candles is so dreary and pedestrian. Like most of John Hughes’ movies.

by Anonymousreply 42306/13/2020

Well, it seems that everything is offensive these days, as well as everything else is racist.

by Anonymousreply 42406/13/2020

I think that is a simplistic view R424, especially regarding the racist part of your statement. I think what happened is that people were saying certain things were racist and/or offensive for years, but their concerns were ignored and brushed off or they were distracted by something else that needed more focus.

I am a black guy in my upper 40s. I'm not some young protester screaming tear it all down, because I'm old enough to know that past is prologue. Burning your history is just burning your history. It changes nothing.

And as for the offensive part of your statement, I think the things that are considered offensive these days were always, on some level, offensive. But the world has changed and will continue changing and those things are just viewed differently now and we all have to adjust or become grumpy old men complaining about the world today and screaming at kids to get off our lawns.

by Anonymousreply 42506/13/2020

Eddie Murphy’s incredibly homophobic stand-up movie Delirious is still streaming on Netflix. Will that get a disclaimer or pulled down?

Yeah. I thought not.

by Anonymousreply 42606/13/2020

'Raintree County' should be censored if 'Gone With the Wind' is removed.

Liz Taylor's character Susanna keeps using on a variation of The N Word.

by Anonymousreply 42706/13/2020

R427 Raintree County should be censored because unlike GWTW, it is shit!

by Anonymousreply 42806/13/2020

OMG! Who the hell needs Sominex when we have "Raintree County?!!"

by Anonymousreply 42906/14/2020

[quote]The cynic in me thinks this was a PR stunt because it's sold out all over and still available on at least a dozen streaming sites

Disney didn't need to pull a publicity stunt like this, especially since at least half of the DVD/BR sales were of used copies that they wouldn't see a dime of.

This was publicized because the media makes money on making the gullible panic, and so they deliberately made it sound like the movie is going to be deleted forever, and all the rightwing nutjobs screamed "censorship! democracy has died!" and people who should know better freaked out and cried about loss of freedoms, then they went out and bought something that made them think now their freedom will never be lost again.

It's grotesque and it's a little upsetting that so few on Datalounge understand what's really going on.

by Anonymousreply 43006/14/2020

R430 It wasn't Disney, GWTW and HBO is owned by WarnerMedia.

by Anonymousreply 43106/14/2020

Gone With the Wind Fabulous!

by Anonymousreply 43206/14/2020

We're in the middle of a deadly pandemic of a highly contagious virus and people are rioting and protesting like its the 1970s. What else is there to say? It fits the current climate.

by Anonymousreply 43306/14/2020

They’re just getting started, darlings.

I’m sad that I’ve got another quarter decade on this garbage planet.

by Anonymousreply 43406/14/2020

On Disney Plus they edited out the Jim Crow scene from "Dumbo." First of all, that is one of the funniest, most entertaining parts of the movie. It also contains a major plot device; the crows discover Dumbo and Timothy the mouse up in a tree. After falling out of the tree, Timothy wonders how he and Dumbo got up there and it occurs to him that Dumbo FLEW up there. The crows react with hilarity. But Timothy tells them about how badly Dumbo had been treated Jim Crow tried to help by telling Dumbo, yes he can fly, with the help of a "magic feather." Dumbo then finds the courage to fly. Seems to me without that scene Dumbo would seem kind of confusing and a there would be a big hole in the plot.

by Anonymousreply 43506/14/2020

Get Olivia to come on before the bells start and simply say.

We didn't know what the fuck we were doing. We're so sorry.

Enjoy the film.

by Anonymousreply 43606/15/2020

[quote]On Disney Plus they edited out the Jim Crow scene from "Dumbo."

Oh for fucks sake, give them British accents. Cased closed.

by Anonymousreply 43706/15/2020

They actually called one of the black crows, Jim Crow???

Yeesh, no wonder that scene was removed.

by Anonymousreply 43806/15/2020

No, R438. One of the crows was called “Jim Crow” in some early drawings, but that, needless to say, did not make in anywhere near the film.

by Anonymousreply 43906/15/2020

Dandy Crow (previously named Jim Crow on the original model sheets) was the leader the group of crows. Though he initially jokes and ridicules Timothy's idea that Dumbo can fly, he hears Dumbo's tragic history and becomes determined to help Dumbo fly for real. He is never mentioned by name in the film, and neither are the other crows. But the credits list them as Fats Crow, Specks Crow, Deacon Crow and Dopey Crow.

by Anonymousreply 44006/15/2020

Hattie McDaniel - Musical Comedy Star

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44106/15/2020

Kareem Abdul Jabbar rebuts the original Op-Ed

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44206/15/2020

John Ridley's goal was obvious. He wants GWTW paired with HIS movie so that he can be a 'white savior' and a 'woke white'. He's looking for publicity. He makes me sick.

by Anonymousreply 44306/15/2020

oh shit. just saw Ridley is black. oops.

by Anonymousreply 44406/15/2020

You've all heard that yesterday HBO announced it is going to return the film to the lineup with a special introduction by a black historian to put it into "historical perspective," right?

by Anonymousreply 44506/16/2020

^ Sorry, I meant to write "historical context." Whatever.

by Anonymousreply 44606/16/2020

I think the backlash has been worrisome enough for HBO to realise it should have thought first and acted later, instead of making themselves look like they were willing to censor art to avoid some controversy.

by Anonymousreply 44706/16/2020

Why should it have to put a disclaimer? It's not a documentary.

by Anonymousreply 44806/16/2020

[quote]He's looking for publicity. He makes me sick.

I assume you're not in the business.

by Anonymousreply 44906/16/2020

I'm available.

by Anonymousreply 45006/16/2020

You can’t censor history.

by Anonymousreply 45106/16/2020

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45206/16/2020

And you can't censor ME!

by Anonymousreply 45306/16/2020

Of course you can censor history. Whoever wins the war writes the history. And that's been going on since antiquity.

Would people be complaining about GWTW if the South had won The War of Northern Aggression?

by Anonymousreply 45406/17/2020

Will Olivia go to the Supreme Court to fight HBO Max?

by Anonymousreply 45506/17/2020

[quote] Of course you can censor history. Whoever wins the war writes the history. And that's been going on since antiquity.

That is part of the problem. That is what usually happens. But, the rest of the US, in the name of reconciliation, allowed the South to largely write the history of the Civil War for 150 years. So that now you have generations of Southerners who were taught one way of looking at the war and people involved, that was reinforced by the rest of the country and popular culture. Now they are expected to abandon what they taught not only by their families, but by culture and education. That is not going to be an easy transition for many people. Even in the 1990s and early 2000s, my history teachers, some of whom were African-American, never taught us to think of people like Robert E. Lee as traitors. We were not taught to remove them from the Pantheon of Southern Heroes, just to make room for people like Martin Luther King, alongside them.

A great example of how the view was reinforced is the words used by Nancy Pelosi's father when he dedicated a memorial to Lee and Stonewall Jackson in 1948.

[quote] we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions … remain steadfast in our determination to preserve freedom, not only for ourselves, but for other liberty-loving nations who are striving to preserve their national unity as free nations.

A current example, of the problems reconciling the past and today, is political strategist Rick Wilson. He is a major anti-Trump figure and part of the Lincoln Project. He has been telling Southerners to take down the flag and calling Confederates traitors, for a while now. Meanwhile, twitter sleuths found photos posted by his wife of their garage and boat, which features a large cooler decorated with the Confederate Flag and "The South Will Rise Again" painted on top.

by Anonymousreply 45606/17/2020

R456, since America was founded by traitors, it's logical that we would have a, shall we say, flexible view of treason.

by Anonymousreply 45706/17/2020

I grew up in CT and in school we were taught that the Civil War was all the South's fault and they should be ashamed of themselves for causing so much death and destruction.

by Anonymousreply 45806/17/2020

"Since America was founded by traitors, it's logical that we would have a, shall we say, flexible view of treason."

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors?" Oh, they owned slaves but don't you know that was considered normal back then? Don't you know that was a long, long time ago? Don't you know any history? Don't you know anything, except to toss around the word "traitor?"

by Anonymousreply 45906/17/2020

"I grew up in CT and in school we were taught that the Civil War was all the South's fault and they should be ashamed of themselves for causing so much death and destruction."

Sounds like you had some incompetent teachers. The Civil War was a lot more complicated than "It's all the South's fault!"

by Anonymousreply 46006/17/2020

R459 He wasn't speaking about slavery. The US Founding Fathers were all, by definition, traitors. They were British subjects who revolted and took up arms against the crown. They were under no illusion that they were committing treason. As Benjamin Franklin famously said when signing the Declaration of Independence, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall hang separately."

by Anonymousreply 46106/17/2020

[quote] A current example, of the problems reconciling the past and today, is political strategist Rick Wilson. He is a major anti-Trump figure and part of the Lincoln Project. He has been telling Southerners to take down the flag and calling Confederates traitors, for a while now. Meanwhile, twitter sleuths found photos posted by his wife of their garage and boat, which features a large cooler decorated with the Confederate Flag and "The South Will Rise Again" painted on top.

Is there anyone who didn’t know from the beginning what a fraud he his? His profession, long before Trump, has been lying for a living. A person would have to be a moron to listen to an old racist cracker like Rick Wilson

by Anonymousreply 46206/17/2020

[quote] A person would have to be a moron to listen to an old racist cracker like Rick Wilson

I got tired of him very quickly. He always hints that he knows so much more, and that something major is about to break, but nothing ever comes out. He's in this to sell books and maybe snag a tv show-- nothing more, nothing less.

by Anonymousreply 46306/17/2020

R462 R463 I never liked him and I'm glad is hypocrisy came to light.

by Anonymousreply 46406/17/2020

r27, Excellent points.

by Anonymousreply 46506/17/2020

The film also scales way back on what are now considered the most offensive elements of the book. Darkies and coloreds may may sound very uncomfortable to modern ears but they are a hell of a lot better than the casual n-words that pepper the novel. And in the film, when the men go out to burn down Shantytown in retaliation for Scarlett's assault, they tell their wives that they will be attending a political meeting. In the book, it's explicitly stated the political organization is the Klan. And the film shows not a single Klan robe.

by Anonymousreply 46606/17/2020

^ Meant to add that the book is much more historically accurate than the film, in those and other ways.

by Anonymousreply 46706/17/2020

[quote]but they are a hell of a lot better than the casual n-words that pepper the novel.

I can only think of one.

by Anonymousreply 46806/17/2020

Its too bad that HBO is not carrying it and the also have come into every home and burned every copy so you cant just buy a copy for $5.00 online.

The dramatics over this HBO decision to carry a movie, that no one was probably signing in to HBO to watch, are fucking ridiculous. So you think that HBO's decision is over the top but you somehow don't understand why your reaction is even more over the top.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46906/17/2020

R426, it is unfair, I agree. But it kind of mocks Eddie because we know what we know about his penchant for trannies and Johnny Gill.

by Anonymousreply 47006/18/2020

Here's a draft of the Disclaimer for GWTW

DISCLAIMER: Be advised that this film does not accurately portray the life and attitudes of black slaves in the Old South. Mammy, Prissy, Pork, Big Sam and Uncle Peter were deeply unhappy about their conditions and forced to remain with their former masters as a result of unseen threats from the Ku Klux Klan. This applies to other unnamed African-American characters shown.

Moreover, no one in the South regardless of economic circumstances owned any gowns as glorious as those worn in certain scenes by Vivien Leigh. Nor were most Southern women of the time as beautiful as Miss Leigh. No plantation home was a spectacular as the Twelve Oaks, whose grand staircase exceeded the one in Versailles. Nor was any main house as well lit and any of the houses depicted, as there was no electricity.

More information regarding inaccuracies about GWTW can be found in our 250 page PDF.

by Anonymousreply 47106/18/2020

"Mammy, Prissy, Pork, Big Sam and Uncle Peter were deeply unhappy about their conditions and forced to remain with their former masters as a result of unseen threats from the Ku Klux Klan."

That is just not true. Anyone reading the book can see that. Those characters were not meant to be representative of the African American population as a whole. They were individuals, with distinct personalities. They were the exception, not the rule. Whoever wrote this shit obviously never read the novel GWTW was based on.

by Anonymousreply 47206/18/2020

It’s not like the servants could make a major career change at their age. Given the options, living in a mansion with everything you needed, even as a servant, would seem preferable to living in the dangerous shantytown.

by Anonymousreply 47306/18/2020

I remember Scarlett referring to some of the former slaves as gorillas or apes in the novel.

by Anonymousreply 47406/18/2020

That has to be a joke--they're not actually commenting on Scarlett's gowns and the movie's sets are they?

by Anonymousreply 47506/18/2020

Geez, you gullible ninnies, r471 is a joke post.

by Anonymousreply 47606/18/2020

I think Mammy got a name in that fiasco by Alexandra Ripley... it might have been Ruth. Or Eleftheri. Or maybe Santannabelle.

Really trying to forget.

by Anonymousreply 47706/18/2020

R477 It wasn't in Alexandra Ripley's book. It was Donald McCaig's second authorized book, Ruth's Journey. It is not a good novel. It makes Alexandra Ripley's Scarlett look like a Nobel Prizewinning Novel in comparison. Not only does the novel not really focus on Mammy, the novel is actually racially worse than GWTW. Ruth does not act like Mammy, whereas Mammy is forceful and not docile, Ruth is a docile doormat. He really turns Mammy into the worst caricature of the Mammy archetype, which is even more unforgivable since it was written by a Yankee in 2014, and not a White Southerner of the 1930s.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 47806/18/2020

[quote]—BTW, what was Mammy's name?

Harlett. Rhymes with Scarlett.

by Anonymousreply 47906/18/2020

Was in Value Village today (in Toronto) and saw the Gone with the Wind DVD box set (used) for $99.99!!

by Anonymousreply 48006/18/2020

ALL of those awful books that were rip offs of GWTW (Scarlett, The Wind Done Gone, Rhett Butler's People, etc.) truly sucked. But I think people still bought them. People will buy any book associated with the characters of GWTW. That's how popular it is.

by Anonymousreply 48106/18/2020

This just reminded me of something I heard years ago — I was watching Ed Sullivan & Nat King Cole was on & after he sang, Sullivan either shook his hand & said, “You're a credit to your race,” or else he was clapping his hands and said “He’s a credit to his race.” It was the first time I ever heard it & I didn’t know what it meant. I asked and my mother said “He’s a colored man who is famous.”

Eventually I heard it again and figured out what people were saying was, “You’re not like the rest of them.” Can yiu imagine being a black man or woman & some white person said to you “You’re a credit to your race” and you had to thank them because the white person thought it was a compliment?

by Anonymousreply 48206/18/2020

^. You don't have to 'thank' them.

It's best to ignore poor behaviour.

by Anonymousreply 48306/18/2020

If I remember correctly, the film's Mammy was a combination of two characters in the book: Mammy and Pork's wife Dilcey. Prissy was their daughter. Too lazy to look it up.

by Anonymousreply 48406/18/2020

My cousin's name is Tara. I wonder if she'll have to change her name?

by Anonymousreply 48506/18/2020

In the novel Dilcey is a slave at Twelve Oaks. She is part Native American. She has a daughter, Prissy. Pork is NOT Prissy's father. Pork marries Dilcey and Gerald buys both Dilcey and Prissy, and they both come to live at Tara. Dilcey comes to Gerald and thanks him for not separating her and Prissy. When Scarlett comes back to Tara to escape the Yankees descending on Atlanta, she finds only three slaves on the plantation that once had a hundred; Pork, Dilcey and Mammy. Dilcey has given birth to Pork's son, so she is able to wet nurse Melanie's baby. Dilcey, like just about all the relatively minor characters in GWTW, was very interesting. It's a shame she was left out of the movie.

by Anonymousreply 48606/18/2020

[quote]ALL of those awful books that were rip offs of GWTW (Scarlett, The Wind Done Gone, Rhett Butler's People, etc.)

The Wind Done Gone was an interesting case. The Margaret Mitchell estate sued the publisher for using copyrighted characters. The court decided that it was a work of satire and allowed it to be published. But the story is stupid. It tells the story of a slave that is a product of an affair between Scarlett's father and Mammy.

by Anonymousreply 48706/18/2020

[quote]My cousin's name is Tara. I wonder if she'll have to change her name?

No, but I hope she gets along with the unemployed investment banker who will now serve as her living contextual disclaimer.

by Anonymousreply 48806/18/2020

R485 She can just say she was named for the hill in Ireland, and any discrimination she experiences as a result of her name is anti-Irish prejudice and that she therefore demands compensation, for the centuries of unjust discrimination of her people at the hands of the Imperialist British and xenophobic Americans.

by Anonymousreply 48906/18/2020

R487 That book was a mess, but it did get Morehouse College more money as the publishers agreed to donate a large sum to them if the MM estate dropped the lawsuit. I would totally be down for an authorized novel from an African-American writer presenting the story from the point of view of the slaves.

by Anonymousreply 49006/18/2020

[quote] I would totally be down for an authorized novel from an African-American writer presenting the story from the point of view of the slaves.

I'd like a novel from Mammy's perspective.

by Anonymousreply 49106/18/2020

r471 here.

Yes that's a joke post. However, when I shared it with a friend, she thought it was real wanted to edit it. Basically, the gowns and Twelve Oaks had to go. A new paragraph about how Reconstruction tried to provide opportunities for former slaves.

Then a third paragraph about Jim Crow.

I wanted to add - Just as no Southern lady was as beautiful a Vivien Leigh, none was as kind as Melanie Wilkes.

by Anonymousreply 49206/18/2020

But how could it be written now except to meet the moment? Maybe the character was content with her lot. As Mitchell wrote her, she stuck around and considered herself one of the family. So that either makes her pathetically deluded or entirely unpalatable in 2020.

My point is it wouldn't be an artistic undertaking but a political one.

Gone with the Wind is what it is, written by who wrote it, produced as a film in ancient days. But I really feel like Gone with the Wind should just be left as it is, with no more attempts to reinterpret or improve it or damn it. That's art, or creativity. It means different things to different people. Was it written with racist content? Yes. It is embarrassing. And instructive. Should the whole damn thing be forgotten because of it? Is there something meritorious to it as storytelling, that transcends the racist failings? Yes, in my view. It wasn't perfect to begin with and seems to become more imperfect with the passage of time. Still, hell of a female character... and really a masterpiece of characterization. Who creates that many minor or supporting characters that make such an impact?

Maybe it's time to let Gone with the Wind rest in peace. Take what you can live with, ignore the rest or ignore it all.

by Anonymousreply 49306/18/2020

Thanks, r486.

by Anonymousreply 49406/19/2020

Would someone please give us a chance? Resurrect us now. We're not even as bad as Gone With The Wind

by Anonymousreply 49506/19/2020

R391 I'd like a version of the novel from Prissy's perspective.

by Anonymousreply 49606/19/2020

I'd like a version in Middle English.

[quote]Scarlett O'hara was not byautiful but men seldom realized it whan caught by hire charm as the Tarleton twyns were.

by Anonymousreply 49706/19/2020

R457 - Don't be absurd. One look at just England's history will show you how treason and traitors to whoever the anointed power (sometimes in the same family) shaped the England you think of as one nation today.

Richard II deposed by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke ring a bell? The Yorks had the better claim but eventually the Lancaster side one ushering in Tudor England, which is where most people's view of the Glory that was England begins.

You might also take a quick look at Russian history for internecine betrayal.

by Anonymousreply 49806/21/2020

R497 for the win.

by Anonymousreply 49906/21/2020

[quote]Too lazy to look it up.

Are you black?

by Anonymousreply 50006/21/2020

[quote] It’s not like the servants could make a major career change at their age. Given the options, [bold]living in a mansion [/bold]with everything you needed, even as a servant...

We’re they off in the slave quarters??

by Anonymousreply 50106/21/2020

R501 The men were either 'housemen' or 'yardmen'.

Yardmen included all those working in the stables, gardeners, orchard keepers etc etc.

by Anonymousreply 50206/21/2020

R501 Mammies usually got to live in the big house, since her job was to care for the children. You know the master and mistress weren’t getting up in the middle of the night for feedings or to comfort a child after a nightmare.

by Anonymousreply 50306/21/2020

I wonder how many Mammies did "wet-nursing"?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50406/21/2020

R504 In one of my college classes we did a whole section about “mammies” and exploring and breaking down the myths and stereotypes. Some of them were wet nurses but many were not. The families preferred them to be women without children of their own, so they would develop a close bond with the children in their care. Usually they would have another slave that had just happened to give birth around that time act as wet nurse until the child was weaned. Most women do not lactate all the time.

by Anonymousreply 50506/21/2020

It Went With The Wind!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50606/21/2020

I recommend Faulkner's masterpiece, Absolam!, Absolam!, published the same year as GWTW, as a somewhat more thoughtful and imaginative book about the same situation and time. It is a very great book, and I'm sure WF was steamed when M. Mitchell's book became such a big hit. Race is the focal point of Faulkner's take on things. Another take on the same era and situation is Ishmael Reed's book, Flight to Canada, in which the Civil War is taking place more or less in contemporary times (the war is being broadcast live on television, etc.). Both are worth reading. The Faulkner book is pretty deceptively constructed.

by Anonymousreply 50706/22/2020

It's back! I hope the histrionic republicans survived two weeks without it!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50806/24/2020

Scott Fitzgerald said he enjoyed reading the novel and praised Mitchell's prose style. He said that he only regretted that so many people thought that it was The Great American Novel and placed it in a pantheon with Huckleberry Finn and Moby Dick.

by Anonymousreply 50906/24/2020

F. Scott Fitzgerald had a white nationalist streak down his back as wide as Texas.

by Anonymousreply 51006/24/2020

R510 What did F. Scott Fitzgerald do to make you say that? (I don't know the man)

by Anonymousreply 51106/24/2020

"F. Scott Fitzgerald had a white nationalist streak down his back as wide as Texas."

I don't know if that's true or not but so fucking what if it was? He spoke the truth. That's one of the things about GWTW; it's one of the most READABLE novels ever made. Right from the first paragraph it grabs you. As one critic said "it casts a spell."

by Anonymousreply 51206/24/2020

[quote]He said that he only regretted that so many people thought that it was The Great American Novel and placed it in a pantheon with Huckleberry Finn and Moby Dick.

Yes, I think we all know what the Great American Novel was.

by Anonymousreply 51306/24/2020

I will watch it WITHOUT the prologue. I don't need somebody telling what and how to think about a movie.

by Anonymousreply 51406/24/2020

"To Kill A Mockingbird" is one of the most overrated novels in the history of the world. Maybe THE most overrated novel of all time.

by Anonymousreply 51506/24/2020

[quote]"To Kill A Mockingbird" is one of the most overrated novels in the history of the world. Maybe THE most overrated novel of all time.

You take that back. I spent WEEKS writing that novel while that useless Nell Harper Lee sat and drank mint juleps that *I* had to pay for.

by Anonymousreply 51606/24/2020

It’s back......

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51706/24/2020

This movie happens to contain one of the greatest performances in screen history. For that alone, it should be viewed by every artist in any field, or by anyone who admires great filmmaking or great acting.

by Anonymousreply 51806/24/2020

What the fuck is wrong with Gone With The Wind? Nothing.

by Anonymousreply 51906/24/2020

What the fuck is wrong with Gone With The Wind? Nothing.

by Anonymousreply 52006/24/2020

You can not erase history by shoving it under thebrug. It happened, let us learn from it.

by Anonymousreply 52106/24/2020

I don't honestly see the point of a disclaimer for GWTW. For stuff like old cartoons with racist imagery fair enough kids might see it fair enough. But who the fuck is going to watch Gone with the Wind in 2020 without some awareness of the context?

by Anonymousreply 52206/24/2020

I disagree with disclaimers because I don’t believe in telling others what is “correct” thinking. People can come to their decisions and conclusions on their own.

by Anonymousreply 52306/25/2020

[quote]This movie happens to contain one of the greatest performances in screen history.

Why thank you. I did my very best. It's so difficult to play truly pure characters. There's not much on the page and I had to find nuances within the role.

by Anonymousreply 52406/25/2020

[quote] This movie happens to contain one of the greatest performances in screen history

Agree that Laura Hope Crews as Aunt Pittypat was perfection.

by Anonymousreply 52506/25/2020

Another little gift to the Party of Elephants.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 52606/25/2020

[quote] Agree that Laura Hope Crews as Aunt Pittypat was perfection.

Selznick first offered the part to Billie Burke but she wanted too much money. True story.

by Anonymousreply 52706/25/2020

Billie Burke was a little too young wasn't she? And she was a too big a name for such a small role.

by Anonymousreply 52806/25/2020

R527 I would have loved the rumor that he considered Mae West for Belle Watling.

by Anonymousreply 52906/25/2020

He did consider Tallulah Bankhead for Belle -- she did one of the first black and white screen tests for Scarlett -- but nobody on his staff was willing to approach her with the offer to play the town madam.

by Anonymousreply 53006/25/2020

R530 I heard that too, but I think she just wasn't right for that role. Yes, she was Southern and a well known slut, but she just doesn't look like a Belle Watling. Ona Munson was perfection, though Mae West would have been great.

I think Ann Margret playing Belle in Scarlett was one of the better casting decisions they made. Though I think if they could have gotten Dolly, it would have been perfect.

by Anonymousreply 53106/25/2020

A big name like Tallulah would have been distracting in such a small role. . . even though Tallulah had no US film career in 39.

Olivia told us at R524 that there wasn't 'much on the page' and Tallulah would not have been able to control herself from being a showy 'grand dame'.

by Anonymousreply 53206/25/2020

R532 The reason I think Mae West, even though she was a huge name, would have worked is that she always appeared in comedies, so people wouldn't know what to expect from her in a drama.

Bankhead was known mainly for her dramatic work, so it wouldn't work as well as a big comedy star taking a small part in a drama. She didn't have much of a film career, but she was still very well known and appeared on radio, quite often, which gave her nationwide exposure.

by Anonymousreply 53306/25/2020

Ziegfeld's widow Billie Burke was at that point known for playing ditzy older woman, like Glenda. But she was well known and that's why she expected more money than Selznick, on a tight budget, was willing to pay.

by Anonymousreply 53406/25/2020

Judy Garland was offered the role of Careen, Scarlett's youngest sister. She lost it only because she was busy filming Oz.

by Anonymousreply 53506/25/2020

In 1989, the United States Library of Congress selected "Gone With the Wind" for preservation in the National Film Registry.

Next step: removal from the Library of Congress?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53606/26/2020

I’m glad he didn’t do what seems in retrospect like stunt casting. Many of those actors, like West and Garland, couldn’t disappear into the parts.

by Anonymousreply 53706/26/2020

West would be a joke.

Red-blooded men in the audience would be salivating at the thought of Rhett's engorged penis in Mae's mouth and forgetting about poor flat-chested Vivien and her troubles.

They'd assume that Rhett was abandoning No-chest Scarlet at the climax to go find Mae's ample bosoms.

by Anonymousreply 53806/26/2020

This thread was just guaranteed a part 2, because of the impending and increasing ferocious debate about whether or not poor Vivien was flat-chested.

by Anonymousreply 53906/26/2020

Was Viv flat chested? I know she had huge hands that she was very self conscious about.

by Anonymousreply 54006/26/2020

R540 She wasn't particularly voluptuous, but she wasn't flat, either.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54106/26/2020

Poor Vivien was so embarrassingly small-breasted in 1967 that they gave her a majorly fake boob job

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54206/26/2020

Kind, kind sir at R542. No doubt if one was to paint a portrait of you, that painting would show your face sans its multiple chins, your hips not as blimp like, and a flattering bulge in the crotch region--unlike the one which in person, no doubt, seems to always be in hiding.

by Anonymousreply 54306/26/2020

Dear Vivien, your major assets are your charm and personality. You don't need fleshy mammories.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54406/26/2020

Vivien was not flat-chested but very petite and slightly built which I guess didn't suit Selznick's idea of a romantic heroine. In his incessant memos Selznick directed the GWTW wardrobe people to 'enhance' her figure.

by Anonymousreply 54506/30/2020

Thanks for the mammories, R544.

by Anonymousreply 54606/30/2020

In the novel Scarlett scrutinizes her figure while getting dressed for the barbecue at Twelve Oaks. She's not at tall as her mother but her height pleases her very well. Her "neck was short but rounded and her arms plump and enticing." She inherited her mother's "slender white hands and tiny feet." She thinks it a pity legs couldn't be shown because "she had such nice legs." She has a quite adequate bosom: "her breasts, pushed high by her stays, were very nice breasts." Scarlett evidently had a relatively balanced figure which did not include an overflowing bosom. I thought Vivien Leigh's figure represented Scarlett very well.

by Anonymousreply 54706/30/2020

Mammy had enough bosom for both her and Scarlett.

by Anonymousreply 54806/30/2020

R547 Mitchell wrote about Scarlet's 'nice breasts' in the 30s which came right after the 20s when the flappers wanted boyish figures and flattened their breast.

The 1950s demanded that EVERY woman (including flat ones like Deborah Kerr) have big or perky breasts.

Which is why Vivien has been painted with fake ones in that 1967 poster at R542. That image in the poster mixes the red dress from one scene and places it in another scene. (And, BTW, I'm a fan of Vivien regardless)

by Anonymousreply 54906/30/2020

No,, r549, Scarlett, is wearing a red dressing gown in the film when Rhett carries her up the stairs against her will. But in the film, it's closed up to her neck, not torn open nearly to the waist as in the poster.

by Anonymousreply 55007/01/2020

R550 It is a dressing gown, not a dress.

by Anonymousreply 55107/01/2020

Isn't that exactly verbatim what I said, r551?

Isn'tit early in the day to be drunk?

by Anonymousreply 55207/01/2020

Isn't that exactly verbatim what I said, r551?

Isn'tit early in the day to be drunk?

by Anonymousreply 55307/01/2020

R552 and R553, I was actually referring to R549 and accidentally typed R550. I hadn't reloaded, so your comment wasn't showing for me. Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 55407/01/2020

r536 But I'm safe right?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55507/01/2020

Happy bithday, Miss de Havilland! 104 today!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55607/01/2020

^ Is she still coherent and able to engage mentally/conversely? Or is she totally "out to lunch?"

I think I'll watch GWTW again in the very near future.

by Anonymousreply 55707/01/2020

[quote] ^ Is she still coherent and able to engage mentally/conversely? Or is she totally "out to lunch?"

Every once in awhile, she tries to recreate that scene where Melanie takes off her night dress to mop up the blood of the Yankee solider and she is left standing naked. Thankfully, she only did it once at the Arc de Triomphe. All the other times were semi-private.

by Anonymousreply 55807/01/2020

I'm the Vivien fan who mentioned poor Vivien's tiny teats.

"So on David O. Selznick’s command, Victor Fleming insisted that Walter Plunkett bind poor Vivien’s breasts together with adhesive tape."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55907/01/2020

They weren't tiny but both Selznick and Fleming considered them too small by Hollywood standards and there were constant discussions with Plunkett and other wardrobe and make up personnel as to what could be done to make them look bigger. Sometimes right in front of her as if she weren't there. Very cruel.

by Anonymousreply 56007/01/2020

I think it also had to do with the fact that her breasts were side set rather than the more archetypical type.

by Anonymousreply 56107/01/2020

R554, I apologize to you for for being so harsh in my reply to you at r552. I guess we've all suffered from time to time from the hazards of DL's interface.

by Anonymousreply 56207/02/2020

It’s fine, I know we are living in stressful times.

by Anonymousreply 56307/02/2020

Very, very nice to see that exchange, 562/563.

by Anonymousreply 56407/02/2020

How large were Viv’s hands, really?

by Anonymousreply 56507/02/2020

"How large were Viv’s hands, really?"

Too big. Supposedly that was her only physical flaw, her big hands. She hid them with bracelets.

by Anonymousreply 56607/02/2020

"Too big. Supposedly that was her only physical flaw, her big hands. "

I wish I had that problem

by Anonymousreply 56707/02/2020

Shut up, R567, you short-fingered vulgarian!

by Anonymousreply 56807/02/2020

Not so much bracelets, r566, but opera length white gloves whenever she appeared in public.

by Anonymousreply 56907/05/2020

R569 I wonder if that is Cybill Shepherd's issue, as well. Because she does that.

by Anonymousreply 57007/05/2020

Cybill had a pretty good face, but she didn’t have a model’s body. Which I guess is why she did mostly print work.

by Anonymousreply 57107/05/2020

Vivien's hands were beautiful, just slightly larger than you'd expect for a woman her size. She was very self-conscious of them however and always tried to hide them.

by Anonymousreply 57207/05/2020

R570 with Cybill it was to do with melanoma. She had skin cancer and had moles removed and she covered that area when outdoors. She said that was the reason on Oprah at least.

by Anonymousreply 57307/06/2020

I don’t know if it was just my internet connection or what, but when I watched Gone With the Wind today the film quality of the new intro was complete shit.

On the other hand, the movie itself was wonderful and extremely clear. We got a new tv during quarantine so I’m sure that helped, but it looked like the whole thing had been retouched. I’ve been watching this movie since I was a child and never before have the costumes seemed so vivid. I was able to see details I have never noticed before.

by Anonymousreply 57407/06/2020

You can see details we've never noticed before because a Chinese company was hired to go through every frame of its four hour length.

They looked at every pixel and increased the sharpness and the color saturation of each and every pixel.

PS. It wasn't one Chinese company; it was seven of them working sumultaneously with seven different factories of worker-slaves.

by Anonymousreply 57507/06/2020

You have no idea what you are talking about, r575.

Although it's true that the last restoration was done in 8K based on the original three strip negatives and it's magnificent.

by Anonymousreply 57607/06/2020

R576 You have no idea of what you're not told about.

Information on off-shore film processing is kept secret to appease the vanity of American patriots.

Off-shore film-making has been going on in Europe since the early 1950s. Canada makes nearly as much Hollywood product as Hollywood.

by Anonymousreply 57707/06/2020

I just watched the movie again. The print is the best I've ever seen, so sharp and clear. Vivien Leigh is more stunningly beautiful than ever, Gable sexier than ever, and the spectacle bigger and grander than ever. No more muted tones. This is gorgeous. What a great movie. And the much-touted intro simply states that slavery was worse than is depicted in the movie.

by Anonymousreply 57807/06/2020

[quote]And the much-touted intro simply states that slavery was worse than is depicted in the movie.

Because we all think that GWTW is a documentary rather than a story which is one step above a Barbara Cartland novel.

by Anonymousreply 57907/06/2020

"Because we all think that GWTW is a documentary rather than a story which is one step above a Barbara Cartland novel."

You must never have read "Gone With The Wind." Or a Barbara Cartland novel.

by Anonymousreply 58007/06/2020

I'll always love Gone with the Wind. I'll always love Scarlet. But I'm not bothered by the pushback. We have to see both. The wonderfulness and the awfulness. It was weird about the Klan and it was weird about the slaves, and it was weird about so much. I still love it. But I can't just go through life pretending it was totally okay. It wasn't. It's like this country.

by Anonymousreply 58107/06/2020

[quote]But I can't just go through life pretending it was totally okay. It wasn't. It's like this country.

Where's the disclaimer that says not all white people lived on plantations?

Where's the disclaimer that says some white people were worse off than slaves?

by Anonymousreply 58207/06/2020

oh come on r582. you and I both know what is going on there. nobody is saying everybody, everyone is saying yeah, this was okay. come on guy.

by Anonymousreply 58307/06/2020

Regardless of all this hoo-ha.

I reckon Vivien's Scarlett is the BEST role ever given to anyone!

by Anonymousreply 58407/06/2020

I do agree r584, she was amazing. we can all see the problems now, but damn, actress and role. it was perfect. oh,damn, I loved Vivien Leigh, and I loved Scarlett O'Hara.

by Anonymousreply 58507/06/2020

Well, Vivien Leigh was what they got when they refused to hire the best. After all, Miss Mitchell started her novel by saying that Scarlett O'hara was not a pretty woman. The role needed an actress, not a china doll.

by Anonymousreply 58607/06/2020

hollywood is different, r586. that role needed an incredibly beautiful woman, no matter what novel said what.

by Anonymousreply 58707/06/2020

Still, r587, they should have hired American.

by Anonymousreply 58807/06/2020

"Scarlett O'Hara was a dried up hag but moviegoers seldom realized it, convinced by movie magazines that Bette Davis wasn't a ham in search of a sandwich."

by Anonymousreply 58907/06/2020

Bette did seem to make an awful lot of Southern movies over the years, The Cabin in the Cotton and Jezebel before GWTW came out and then The Little Foxes, In This Our Life, and Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte afterward. I'm sure I left some out. Her accent in them was better than many Hollywood actresses then or now. But, she was wrong for Scarlett. Vivien Leigh was perfection!

by Anonymousreply 59007/06/2020

No one could have played the part as well, although Davis would have been my second choice. I shudder to think of how horrible Paulette Goddard would have been AND SHE ALMOST GOT THE PART. I cannot believe she came so close to being cast with that awful, whiny voice of hers and her simply atrocious acting. Yes, she's pretty, but that's all. Anyway, crisis averted. Thank God, Leigh came to Hollywood and met Selznick and the rest is history.

by Anonymousreply 59107/06/2020

Yes, Bette would have been my second choice as well. Hell almost any of the other actresses whose names have been connected with the role, would have been better than Goddard. Except maybe Katherine Hepburn, I just can't picture that. Even Lucy would have been better than Goddard.

by Anonymousreply 59207/06/2020

Bette Davis was simply not good looking enough to play Scarlett. Vivien Leigh had everything that was needed to play her: looks and talent.

by Anonymousreply 59307/06/2020

I wonder if George Cukor would allow bad Bette as Scarlett.

He sais "she bucked at direction. She had her own ideas, and ... didn't hesitate to express them."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 59407/06/2020

Any actor with his/her salt has their own ideas. But Davis could take direction if she respected the director. I don't know if Cukor could have tamed her, but Fleming would have. He'd have smacked the shit out of her if she gave him lip.

by Anonymousreply 59507/06/2020

Vivien Leigh is a two time Academy Award winner, as well as a Tony Award winner among other awards. She is one of the finest actresses who ever lived. Her Scarlett O'Hara is one of few roles that I simply cannot imagine another actress. This was a case where beauty and ability were equal.

by Anonymousreply 59607/07/2020

I adore Vivien.

(but I'm sorry, R596, I have read everything available about her and her husband but I can't bring myself to agree with your second sentence. . . I adore him, of course.

I've spoken with one eldergay who had the pleasure of hosting a charity function in the early 60s in a small theatre just two miles away from my house. Vivien and Jack Merivale attended the first act of 'The Sleeping Prince' and were photographed by sundry photographers. He said she was sparkling, supremely ornamental and supremely charming in a calf length black dress and a mink coat.

The second eldergay has the amazing pleasure of seeing her on stage at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon in 1955. He said she was charming as Viola in 'Twelfth Night'. But her tiny voice and tiny body was embarrassingly inadequate for the two heaviest of dramas 'Macbeth' and 'Titus Andronicus'. My friend said her husband was trying to help by giving her space on the stage and light but, as I said, it was embarrassingly evident that she belonged on the big screen rather than the live stage.)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 59707/07/2020

And I know someone who saw her in Titus Andronicus and said she gave one of the most brilliant performances he's ever seen on stage. So there.

by Anonymousreply 598Last Wednesday at 12:07 AM

R598 Did you the audience tittering as she dropped her stick?

by Anonymousreply 599Last Wednesday at 12:12 AM

** [R598] Did you hear the audience tittering...**

by Anonymousreply 600Last Wednesday at 12:18 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!